Foreign-Trade Zones Board
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Register Office
Federal Aviation Administration
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
On December 26, 2024, at 89 FR 104,859, the Director of the Federal Register removed 5 CFR Chapter XL pursuant to section 101 of Public Law 104-88, which abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission on December 29, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. However, Public Law 104-88 also includes a savings provision in section 204, stating that all regulations in effect under the Interstate Commerce Commission continue in effect under the Surface Transportation Board. Therefore, the regulations at 5 CFR Chapter XL continue in effect pursuant to Public Law 104-88, section 204, and the removal was in error.
The Director of the Federal Register, pursuant to his authority to maintain an orderly system of codification under 44 U.S.C. 1510 and 1 CFR 8.2, hereby reinstates Chapter XL of Title 5, consisting of Parts 5000 to 5099, of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain FS 2001 Corp, FS 2002 Corporation, FS 2003 Corporation, Piper, and Piper Aircraft, Inc. (Piper) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of broken rudders. This AD requires replacing any rudder equipped with a rudder post made from a certain carbon steel with a rudder equipped with a rudder post made from a certain low-alloy steel. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 20, 2025.
Joseph Zuklic, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (206) 231-3858; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain FS 2001 Corp, FS 2002 Corporation, FS 2003 Corporation, and Piper airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The NPRM was prompted by reports of two non-fatal accidents involving airplanes designed and built by Piper that were caused by broken rudder posts that structurally failed above the upper hinge in flight. Both accidents occurred in Anchorage, Alaska. The first accident occurred on June 8, 2020, and involved an FS 2003 Model PA-12 airplane and the second accident occurred on July 23, 2021, and involved an FS 2002 Model PA-14 airplane. Both airplanes sustained substantial damage when the rudder structurally failed.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) published the report
The NTSB examined the rudders involved in these accidents and determined that the rudder posts fractured above the upper hinge and the top portion of the rudder folded over the upper tail brace wires. The NTSB also determined that the rudder posts were made from 1025 carbon steel and fractured due to fatigue.
Prior to the NPRM, the FAA issued an Airworthiness Concerns Sheet, dated September 4, 2020 (Airworthiness Concerns Sheet), which requested information from the aviation community regarding in-flight failure of the rudder just above the upper hinge on all Piper and FS2003 Corp (type certificate previously held by Piper) Model J-5A, J-5B, J-5C, J-5D, AE-1, HE-1, PA-12, PA-12S, PA-14, PA-16, PA-18, L-21, PA-20, and PA-22 airplanes. The responses revealed that there were five additional broken rudder posts dating as far back as 1979.
Before 1974, all rudders installed on Piper model airplanes were equipped
The NTSB determined that the broken rudder posts resulted from the combination of fatigue loading and corrosion affecting the rudder assemblies made from 1025 carbon steel. This condition, if not addressed, could result in a broken rudder and consequent reduced ability of the flight crew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing any rudder equipped with a rudder post made from 1025 carbon steel with a rudder equipped with a rudder post made from 4130N low-alloy steel. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
After the NPRM was published, the FAA revised Note 2 to paragraph (c) of this AD to clarify that Piper Service Bulletin 1379B, dated May 7, 2024, contains information on how to determine whether a rudder post is made from 4130N low-alloy steel and that this is not the only way to determine this, and this AD does not require the use of that service bulletin.
In addition, the FAA determined that the Airplane Model column that was included in Table 2 to paragraph (g)—Compliance Times in the proposed AD is not needed and that column has been deleted in this AD.
The FAA received comments from approximately 354 commenters. The FAA received comments from individual commenters as well as from organizations. The majority of the comments were from individuals. Organizations submitting comments included the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Light Aircraft Association (LAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Royal Netherlands Air Force Historic Flight, The Short Wing Piper Club, and the Vintage Aircraft Association (VAA).
The following summarizes the relevant comments received on the NPRM and provides the FAA's responses.
Numerous commenters, including individuals, AOPA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA requested that the NPRM be withdrawn because the FAA did not post all required documents to the AD docket as required by the Federal Aviation Administration Airworthiness Directives Manual, FAA-IR-M-8040.1C, dated May 17, 2010 (AD Manual). The commenters requested additional information that the FAA used in its decision to publish the NPRM, specifically, the information required in Chapter 11, Section 3, paragraphs (a) through (g), page 63, of the AD Manual.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Many commenters, including individuals, AOPA, and The Short Wing Piper Club, requested that the NPRM be withdrawn due to the lack of availability of data to interested parties. The commenters stated that the Airworthiness Concerns Sheet was not communicated to all interested parties. Some commenters also stated that they were not notified or were unaware of the Airworthiness Concerns Sheet posted to the FAA website.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals and LAA, suggested that the NPRM be withdrawn because the cause of the rudder posts failing is that higher horsepower engines are being installed and are not compliant with FAA regulations. Several of the commenters further stated that the FAA should correct the illegal engine installations rather than impose an unneeded rudder replacement on the remaining fleet that does not have higher horsepower engines installed.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Many commenters, including individuals, AOPA, EAA, LAA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, suggested that two reported incidents (referred to as accidents in the NPRM) does not justify an NPRM, therefore, it should be withdrawn. The commenters stated that two incidents out of over 31,000 airplanes does not represent a risk level that warrants an AD. Some of these individual commenters suggested that the NPRM be replaced by an SAIB.
The FAA evaluated two accidents and five rudder post failures to determine that an unsafe condition exists:
• Two separate accident investigations, referenced as ANC20LA059 and ANC21LA064, detailed in NTSB report NTSB/AIR-22-02.
• NTSB investigators obtained three additional previously broken rudders and included these broken rudders in their evaluation.
• Two additional rudder post failures that occurred in 1979 and 1990 were reported to the FAA and the broken rudders were not available for the NTSB's examination. These rudder post failures were reported to the FAA in response to the Airworthiness Concerns Sheet. The 1979 airplane was a Model PA-18 with standard wheel landing gear and a 180-horsepower engine. The 1990 airplane was a Model PA-12 with ski landing gear and a 160-horsepower engine.
• The FAA also received comments from repair facilities indicating that this failure has happened on multiple other occasions over the years, although no specifics were available.
The FAA determined that corrosion and fatigue will accelerate the failures over time as the strength of the rudder is continually compromised due to the combined effects of corrosion and fatigue. Furthermore, many of the approximately 31,000 airplanes are not currently in service (currently there are about 13,000 active airplanes in the fleet)—and many of these airplanes already have rudder assemblies made from 4130N low-alloy steel installed. Therefore, as the rudder post failures have accumulated over time, the number of active airplanes with rudder assemblies made from 1025 carbon steel has decreased. Given that more rudder post failures are occurring within a shrinking fleet size indicates that the failure is occurring more frequently as corrosion progresses and fatigue cycles accumulate.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals, AOPA, EAA, and The Short Wing Piper Club, suggested that the NPRM is not warranted and should be withdrawn. The commenters stated that there have never been any crashes or injuries from rudder failure. Some of the commenters further stated that the two reported accidents did not rise to the level of being called an accident and that they should be classified as “incidents” making the NPRM unnecessary.
In addition, The Short Wing Piper Club stated that the NTSB report results were problematic. The Short Wing Piper Club stated that the NTSB report used an incorrect testing methodology to an extremely small sample. In addition, The Short Wing Piper Club claimed that there was evidence that at least one person believed the material was 4130N low-alloy steel.
As indicated in NTSB report NTSB/AIR-22-02, the Piper Model PA-12 and Model PA-14 airplanes that were investigated by the NTSB were both referred to as “accidents.” The FAA is adopting the same terminology as the NTSB. In the two accidents and five rudder post failures where a crash did not occur, although the airplane may have retained a limited amount of rudder control, it may not have been sufficient for control and landing in all flight conditions. In some cases, it
The FAA also does not agree that the NTSB reports are incorrect and determined that they are both technically and factually accurate. The hardness tests were initially performed to determine the material in the failed rudder posts. There is a correction used in the hardness tests to account for a curved surface. The failed rudder posts were oblong (not round) due to the failure. However, the NTSB concluded that the hardness tests were accurate enough to determine the material. In addition, the NTSB also had metallurgical tests performed on the failed rudders and these tests confirmed that the failed rudders were made from 1025 carbon steel. In addition, the FAA does not agree that a small sample size is inadequate or flawed. The FAA determined that the NTSB investigation, and the sample size, is adequate to draw a conclusion to the nature of the unsafe condition.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals, AOPA, EAA, LAA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, stated that the NPRM would be burdensome based on the sheer number of affected airplanes. The FAA infers that the commenters requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. The commenters stated that the NPRM was an overreach by the FAA based on only two incidents out of 31,000 airplanes in the U.S. general aviation fleet.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Many commenters, including individuals and The Short Wing Piper Club, stated that the NPRM should be withdrawn or further limited in scope because the rudder post failed, not the rudder. The commenters also stated that the incident airplanes landed safely, therefore no unsafe condition exists.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, stated that the NPRM should be withdrawn due to lack of rudder availability. The commenters stated that the PMA manufacturers will not be able to produce 31,000 new rudders to comply with the AD within the AD compliance times.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals and the NTSB stated that other airplane models should be added to the applicability of the proposed AD. The commenters stated that other airplane models use the same rudder type.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Several commenters, including individuals, LAA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, stated that the Model J-3 and Model PA-11 airplanes should be removed from the applicability. The FAA infers that, by Model J-3 and Model PA-11 airplanes, the commenters are referring to all models that begin with “J3” and “PA-11.” The commenters stated that the rudder assembly part number for the Model “J3” and Model “PA-11” airplanes is a different rudder assembly part number compared with the rudder assembly part number for the incident airplanes. The commenters also stated that these
As previously stated, the FAA revised table 2 to paragraph (g)(1)—Compliance Times of this AD to include a Category IV for airplanes that do not have a rudder post mounted beacon light and have an engine of 100 hp or below installed. The compliance time for Category IV airplanes is within 10 years after the effective date of this AD. The Model “J3” and Model “PA-11” airplanes would fall into this category provided they do not have a post mounted beacon light and do not have an engine installed with more than 100 hp. VAA calculated loads and stresses on the rudder post for all affected airplane models and the results are posted to the AD docket.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Numerous commenters, including individuals, EAA, LAA, and The Short Wing Piper Club, requested that the applicability be limited to airplanes with floats installed. The commenters stated that the incidents occurred on airplanes that were on floats operating in a marine environment in Alaska. The commenters further stated that airplanes with floats installed require the installation of a ventral fin that reduces required rudder input.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Many commenters, including individuals, AOPA, EAA, VAA, and LAA, suggested that the NPRM be limited to airplane configurations matching those of the incident airplanes (
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Numerous commenters, including individuals, EAA, LAA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, requested that the NPRM be limited to airplanes with a rudder-mounted beacon light installed. The commenters stated that the additional load due to the beacon light was the cause of the rudder post failure.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
Numerous commenters, including individuals, EAA, LAA, The Short Wing Piper Club, and VAA, requested that the NPRM be limited to airplanes with higher horsepower engines than what is listed on the type certificate data sheet for those airplane models. The commenters stated that the cause of the rudder post failure was the installation of engines with higher horsepower than specified on the applicable type certificate data sheet for those airplanes. The commenters suggested that higher horsepower engines increase p-factor (asymmetric blade effect), which increases rudder loading.
The NTSB and VAA calculated loads and stresses on the rudder post that approach the endurance limit based on the maneuvering and gust loads prescribed in Civil Air Regulations (CAR 03), which is the predecessor to 14 CFR part 23, and is the original certification basis for the affected airplanes. With the presence of corrosion, pitting, or scratches, the strength of the rudder post is reduced, and the increased fatigue stress can exceed the endurance limit of 1025 carbon steel. The NTSB concluded that this is the primary mechanism that caused the rudder post failures.
The FAA acknowledges that the rudders on the airplanes with lower horsepower engines may not need replacement as often as other models. As previously stated, the FAA revised Table 2 to paragraph (g)—Compliance Times of this AD to include a Category IV for airplanes that do not have a rudder post mounted beacon light and have an engine of 100 hp or below installed. The compliance time for Category IV airplanes is within 10 years after the effective date of this AD.
Several individual commenters requested that the applicable serial numbers for various airplane models match Piper Service Bulletin 1379, dated December 2, 2022 (Piper Service Bulletin 1379). The commenters stated that the NPRM lists all serial numbers for the affected models whereas Piper Service Bulletin 1379 lists specific serial numbers for most of the affected airplane models. The commenters also stated that for some airplane models, Piper Service Bulletin 1379 does not call out all produced airplanes. The commenters further stated that matching the effectivity in Piper Service Bulletin 1379 would reduce the scope of the NPRM.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
In addition, a load test as an inspection to determine airworthiness is problematic because the load test could further damage the rudder and contribute to an accident. It would be very difficult to determine an acceptable load test that would in all cases determine a suspect rudder and not unknowingly damage a rudder. Strength testing the rudder post up to approximately yield stress is also problematic. If the strength of the rudder has been degraded over the years due to corrosion and fatigue, a test load could cause permanent, but unnoticed, damage to the rudder and could be the cause of a rudder failure in a subsequent flight.
If an owner/operator would like to implement an inspection program on its airplane to monitor the strength of the rudder in lieu of replacement, the FAA will consider the proposal upon submission of an AMOC request following the procedures in paragraph (h) of this AD.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
As far as this AD affecting a substantial number of small businesses, the FAA does not agree. The commenters did not provide any evidence or data to substantiate that this would affect a substantial number of small businesses. Based on the estimated cost impact of $3,000 (labor and parts cost) per each airplane affected by this final rule and that operators should be able to find replacement rudders without difficulty, the FAA has determined that this rule will not significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.
The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of these comments.
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 the 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 estimates that this AD affects 30,992 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 airplane 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
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.
Air transportation, Airplane, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 20, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to all airplane models specified in table 1 to paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any category, that are not equipped with a rudder having a rudder post made from 4130N low-alloy steel.
Most parts manufacturer approval (PMA) rudders are equipped with a rudder post made from 4130N low-alloy steel. This can be verified by reviewing the individual PMA.
Piper Service Bulletin 1379B, dated May 7, 2024, contains information on how to determine whether a rudder post is made from 4130N low-alloy steel. This is not the only way to determine this and this AD does not require the use of this service bulletin.
Joint Airplane System Component (JASC) Code 5540, Rudder Structure.
This AD was prompted by reports of broken rudders. The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue loading and corrosion of rudder posts made from 1025 carbon steel which, if not addressed, could result in a broken rudder and consequent reduced ability of the flight crew to maintain the safe flight and landing of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) At the applicable compliance time for the category type for your airplane specified in table 2 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, replace the rudder with a rudder that is equipped with a rudder post made from 4130N low-alloy steel.
(2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any rudder that is equipped with a rudder post made from 1025 carbon steel on any airplane.
(1) The Manager, West Certification Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the West Certification Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Joseph Zuklic, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (206) 231-3858; email:
(2) For material identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference, contact Piper Aircraft, Inc., 2926 Piper Drive, Vero Beach, FL 32960; phone: (772) 299-2141; website:
None.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On January 15, 2025, the Department of Interior (Department) published in the
The effective date for the final rule published on January 15, 2025, at 90 FR 3627, is delayed to March 21, 2025.
Oliver Whaley, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (AS-IA), (202) 738-6065. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services.
On January 15, 2025, the Department of the Interior published a final rule creating a conditional, time-limited opportunity for petitioners denied Federal acknowledgment to re-petition, through implementation of a re-petition authorization process. The final rule appends a new subpart titled “Subpart D—Re-Petition Authorization Process” to the end of the current part 83 regulations. The new subpart applies to “unsuccessful petitioner[s],” which is a new term defined in § 83.1. The final rule also inserts new definitions for “re-petition authorization process” and “re-petitioning” in § 83.1. Additionally, the final rule revises 25 CFR 83.4(d), the provision that previously prohibited re-petitioning. The provision as revised notes a limited exception to the re-petition ban for unsuccessful petitioners that meet the conditions of §§ 83.47 through 83.49, as determined by AS-IA in the re-petition authorization process.
On January 20, 2025, after publication of the final rule, the President of the United States issued a Presidential Memorandum (PM) titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.”
Here, good cause exists for postponing the effective date of the final rule for 60 days from the date of the PM, without subjecting the postponement to notice-and-comment procedure. As a preliminary matter, notice-and-comment procedure would be impracticable. The time frame for the receipt and review of comments would necessarily extend past the original, February 14 effective date and likely past the new, March 21 effective date as well.
Additionally, a 35-day postponement is reasonable. Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2, the Secretary of the Interior has “the management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations,” including the administration of the Department's Federal acknowledgment process.
For the reasons stated above, the final rule is now effective on March 21, 2025.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective dates.
In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2025, titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action temporarily delays the effective date of the Wyoming and Montana Regulatory Program amendments.
The effective date of the rule published on January 13, 2025, at 90 FR 2614 (Wyoming Regulatory Program amendment) is delayed until March 21, 2025, and the rule published on January 15, 2025, at 90 FR 3673 (Montana Regulatory Program amendment) is delayed until March 21, 2025.
Jeffrey Fleischman, Field Office Director, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 East B Street, Casper, Wyoming 82606, Telephone: (307) 261-6550, Email:
On January 13, 2025, OSMRE published a rule approving an amendment to the Wyoming Regulatory Program. The amendment proposed rules that would facilitate the disposal of inert decommission wind turbine blades and towers as backfill in end walls or the final pit voids in surface coal mining operations. The State also made changes to its regulations to provide consistency with the Wyoming Secretary of State's Rules on Rules, as well as correct grammatical errors.
On January 15, 2025, OSMRE published a rule partially approving and partially not approving an amendment to the Montana Regulatory Program. The amendment concerned changes to the definition of material damage and changes to permit requirements related to hydrologic information.
On January 20, 2025, the White House issued a memorandum instructing Federal agencies to consider postponing the effective date of any regulations that have published in the
OSMRE is taking this action to extend the effective date without opportunity for public comment and with an immediate effective date based on the good cause exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4)(B). Seeking public comment on the effective date extension 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 memorandum of the President, dated January 20, 2025. Given the imminence of the original effective date of these two amendments, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay is impractical, and contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations. For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) also applies to OSMRE's decision to make this action to extend the effective date effective immediately.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for waters between the 14th Street Bridge to the north and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge to the south. The safety zone is needed to protect the public and vessels from potential hazards created by an aircraft collision on the Potomac River. Additionally, the safety zone is needed to ensure a safe working environment for the first responders and dive teams from passing traffic. This rule will prohibit persons or vessels from entering this zone unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (NCR) or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from February 7, 2025, to February 21, 2025. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Kate Newkirk, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; 410-365-8141,
On January 29, 2025, at approximately 9:00 p.m., a regional jet collided midair with a Black Hawk helicopter and landed in the Potomac River near
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary due to the urgency of the emergency situation and the need to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards associated with salvage operations including debris, jet fuel, cold temperatures, and response equipment and vessels. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone immediately on February 7, 2025.
Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP Sector Maryland-NCR has determined that potential hazards associated with this rescue and salvage operation starting on February 7, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone between the 14th Street Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone from potential hazards while the vessel salvage operations are being conducted.
This rule establishes a safety zone from February 7, 2025, through February 21, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between the 14th Street Bridge, 38°52.45′ N, 077°02.6′ W to 38°52.62′ N, 077°02.28′ W and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, from 38°51.5′ N, 077°01.53′ W to 38°48.55′ N, 077°01.59′ W, on the Potomac River. This rule is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during salvage operation. This rule will prohibit persons or vessels from entering this zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
The COTP or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the zone. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the zone, citation for failure to comply, or both.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zone. This safety zone would take place on a relatively small area of the Potomac River lasting from February 7, 2025, through February 21, 2025. Additionally, the Coast Guard would issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 announcing the safety zone so that waterway users may plan accordingly for transits during this restriction, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission from the COTP Maryland-NCR or a designated representative to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency′ s responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes,
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone on the Potomac River lasting less than 7 days that will prohibit entry into a portion of the Potomac River near Washington, DC. This is necessary to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the salvage of an aircraft collision. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(c) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) Vessels desiring to transit the regulated area may do so only with prior approval of the COTP Maryland-NCR or a designated representative and when so directed will be operated at a minimum safe navigation speed in a manner that will not endanger salvage operations in the zone or any other vessels.
(3) The COTP Maryland-NCR or a designated representative may forbid and control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
(4) Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Maryland-NCR or a designated representative.
(5) Persons or vessels seeking to enter or transit through the zone must request permission from the COTP Maryland-NCR or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16 or by telephone at 410-576-2693.
(6) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the COTP Maryland-NCR or designated representative.
(d)
National Park Service, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from President Donald J. Trump, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” this action temporarily delays the effective date of a rule published on January 13, 2025, until March 21, 2025.
As of February 11, 2025, the effective date of the final rule amending 36 CFR part 7 published at 90 FR 2621, January 13, 2025, is delayed to March 21, 2025.
Michelle Kerns, Superintendent, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, P.O. Box 1507, Page, Arizona 86040, by phone at 928-608-6210, or by email at
The National Park Service (NPS) is taking this action in response to the memorandum of January 20, 2025, from the President, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review.” The memorandum directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to consider postponing for 60 days from the date of the memorandum the effective date for any rules that have
The NPS is taking this action, without opportunity for public comment and effective immediately, based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The temporary delay in effective date until March 21, 2025, is necessary to give Agency 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 this regulation, seeking prior public comment on this temporary delay is impractical, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly promulgation and implementation of regulations.
For the foregoing reasons, the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) also applies to NPS's decision to make this action effective immediately. Moreover, to the extent that extending the effective date of this rule would grant an exception or relieve a restriction, an exception also applies under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Where appropriate, the Agency may consider further delaying the effective date of the above-referenced regulations beyond March 21, 2025. If the Agency were to do so, consistent with the memorandum of the President, the Agency would consider whether to propose any later effective date for public comment.
Farm Credit Administration.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or we) extends the comment period on its proposed rule that would revise FCA regulations to require certain Farm Credit System institutions to obtain integrated audits under certain conditions. FCA is reopening the comment period.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on November 29, 2024 (89 FR 94615), is reopened. Comments are due Monday, March 31, 2025.
For accuracy and efficiency, please submit comments by email or through FCA's website. We do not accept comments submitted by fax because faxes are difficult to process. Also, please do not submit comments multiple times; submit your comment only once, using one of the following methods:
• Send an email to
•
1. Go to
2. Click inside the “I want to . . .” field near the top of the page.
3. Select “comment on a pending regulation” from the dropdown menu.
4. Click “Go.” This takes you to the comment form.
•
We post all comments on the FCA website. We will show your comments as submitted, including any supporting information; however, for technical reasons, we may omit items such as logos and special characters. Personal information that you provide, such as phone numbers and addresses, will be publicly available. However, we will attempt to remove email addresses to help reduce internet spam.
To review comments on our website, go to
1. Click inside the “I want to . . .” field near the top of the page.
2. Select “find comments on a pending regulation” from the dropdown menu.
3. Click “Go.” This will take you to a list of regulatory projects.
4. Select the project in which you're interested. If we have received comments on that project, you will see a list of links to the individual comments.
You may also review comments at the FCA office in McLean, Virginia. Please call us at (703) 883-4056 or email us at
On November 29, 2024, FCA published a proposed rule in the
The comment period expired on January 28, 2025. The Farm Credit Council, on behalf of Farm Credit institutions, requested more time for comments and specifically asked for an additional 60 days. In response to this request, FCA reopens the comment period until March 31, 2025, so interested parties will have additional time to provide comments on the proposed rule.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A330-800, and A330-900 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an incorrect shot peening application being implemented in production starting from 2008. This proposed AD would require repetitive detailed inspections (DET) of certain splice fittings and, depending on findings, repair, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 31, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2024-0200, dated October 21, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0200) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-800, and A330-900 series airplanes; and Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, -343, and -743L airplanes. Model A330-743L airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that an incorrect shot peening application has been implemented in production starting from 2008. Fatigue life of affected parts (certain splice fittings) can consequently be lower than the certified value. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
EASA AD 2024-0200 specifies procedures for repetitive DET of affected parts (splice fittings at the front windshield side post, on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, having part number (P/N) F531-23024-200 and P/N F531-23024-201, respectively) for cracking, and depending on findings, repairing cracking. 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
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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0200 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0200 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0200 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0200 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 58 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by March 31, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) through (5) of this AD, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0200, dated October 21, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0200).
(1) Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, and -243 airplanes.
(2) Model A330-223F and -243F airplanes.
(3) Model A330-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.
(4) Model A330-841 airplanes.
(5) Model A330-941 airplanes
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an incorrect shot peening application being implemented in production starting in 2008. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this condition, which if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0200.
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0200 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2024-0200 specifies “if any crack is found on an affected part, before next flight, contact Airbus for repair instructions and, within the compliance time specified in those instructions, accomplish those instructions accordingly.” this AD requires replacing that text with “if any cracking is detected, the cracking must be repaired before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
(3) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0200.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0200, dated October 21, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-25-14, which applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. This action revises the NPRM by adding a prohibition against accomplishing a repair using certain structural repair manual (SRM) tasks. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Since these actions would impose an additional burden over those in the NPRM, the FAA is requesting comments on this SNPRM.
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by March 31, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) material identified in this SNPRM, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5102; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD to supersede AD 2021-25-14, Amendment 39-21858 (86 FR 72171, December 21, 2021) (AD 2021-25-14), that would apply to all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, 151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2021-25-14 and to require expanding the applicability to include new engine option (NEO) airplanes and accomplishment of the required actions within updated compliance times, as applicable to airplane configuration.
Since the FAA issued the NPRM, EASA superseded EASA AD 2024-0027 and issued EASA AD 2024-0230, dated December 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0230) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes; and Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this proposed AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability. The MCAI states that since AD 2024-0027 was issued, it was identified that Airbus published certain SRM tasks at revision dated May 2024, removing instructions linked to steps 2 to 9 and aligning the compliance time with the EASA AD 2024-0027 for all the related SRM tasks. In addition, SRM tasks 57-21-11-300-010, 57-21-11-300-021 and 57-21-11-300-025 were deactivated at revision dated August 2023, and should no longer be used.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested the inclusion of an exception in paragraph (h) of the final rule to correct the meaning of “Steps 2 to 9” as stated in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2024-0027. Delta stated the meaning of “Steps 2 to 9” in paragraph (5) is not readily evident due to a conflict between the note included in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2024-0027 and later revisions of Airbus A319-A320-A321 SRM, which has had the bushing oversize step numbering deleted from the referenced SRM repair.
Delta also requested the inclusion of an exception paragraph in the final rule of allowing operators with A321-200 (CEO [current engine option]) aircraft and A321-200 (NEO ACF [advanced cabin flex]) aircraft, as defined in Appendix 1, Table 1 and Table 2 of EASA AD 2024-0027, to omit the requirements to accomplish certain post-repair inspections at the compliance times specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2024-0027, rather than those in the SRM. Delta stated Airbus adjusted the thresholds and intervals for post-repair inspections to match the compliance times specified in paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2024-0027 in the recent SRM Revision 27, SRM Task 57-21-11-300-009.
Delta also requested the inclusion of an exception in paragraph (h) of the final rule to clarify and correct the meaning of “Step 1” in paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2024-0027. Delta stated that the meaning of “Step 1” is unclear due to a conflict between the note after paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2024-0027, and later revisions of the SRM, which have the bushing oversize step numbering deleted from the applicable figure.
The FAA disagrees with the request to add exceptions because EASA AD 2024-0230 supersedes EASA AD 2024-0027 and addresses Delta's concerns by clarifying the requirements that were specified in paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) of EASA AD 2024-0027. EASA AD 2024-0230 adds Note 1 to paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2024-0230 to clarify which SRMs included steps 2 to 9 for bushing installation. EASA AD 2024-0230 also clarifies the affected airplanes for paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2024-0230 and removes reference to “Step 1” from paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2024-0230. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.
EASA AD 2024-0230 specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections (DET) for cracks of the affected areas (left-hand and right-hand wing manhole access panel attachment holes in the bottom wing skin panels 2, between rib 13 and rib 23), and applicable corrective actions (
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
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2024-0230 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2024-0230 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0230 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2024-0230 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2024-0230. Material required by EASA AD 2024-0230 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,650 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed 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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by March 31, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2021-25-14, Amendment 39-21858 86 FR 72171, December 21, 2021 (AD 2021-25-14).
This AD applies to all Airbus SAS airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this AD and certificated in any category.
(1) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, -153N, and -171N airplanes.
(2) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, -233, -251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes.
(3) Model A321-211, -212, -213, -231, -232, -251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.
This AD was prompted by a determination that fatigue cracking may occur at the left-hand and right-hand wing manhole access panel attachment holes in the bottom wing skin panels 2, between rib 13 and rib 23, on airplanes with Sharklets or their structural reinforcements installed. This AD was also prompted by a determination that additional airplanes are subject to the unsafe condition, and that certain structural repair manual
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0230, dated December 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0230).
(1) Where EASA AD 2024-0230 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where EASA AD 2024-0230 refers to February 8, 2024 (the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0027 dated January 25, 2024), this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2024-0230 specifies “any finding is detected as defined in the [Alert Operators Transmission] AOT, before next flight, contact Airbus for approved repair instructions and, within the compliance time specified therein, accomplish those instructions accordingly,” this AD requires replacing that text with “any cracking is detected, the cracking must be repaired before further flight using a method approved by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.”
(4) This AD does not adopt the requirements of paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2024-0230.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0230.
Although the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0230 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Timothy Dowling, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 817-222-5102; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0230, dated December 2, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For the EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by certification testing that found that environmental control system (ECS) ducts manufactured using a certain material failed the flammability test requirements established for compliance. This proposed AD would require inspecting the affected ECS ducts and, as applicable, installing a fire-resistant sleeve assembly over any non-compliant ECS duct, and prohibit the installation of ECS ducts as replacement parts under certain conditions, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 31, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-228-7368; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-228-7368; email
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21, dated June 20, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that ECS ducts, located on forward and aft cargo compartment ceiling panels, having part numbers (P/Ns) D761189-105, D761189-501, and D762232-509, have been manufactured using material APF1180-7781, which replaced discontinued legacy material Solvay L591PG-7781. The material change to APF1180-7781 was done without changing the ECS duct part number. Subsequent certification testing of the ECS ducts made using material APF1180-7781 failed flammability test requirements. These noncompliant ECS ducts may have been installed on certain affected airplanes during production. Noncompliant ECS ducts could result in the inability to contain a fire within the cargo compartment, which could result in an uncontrolled fire.
The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 specifies procedures for inspecting to determine the lot numbers of affected ECS ducts and installing a fire-resistant sleeve assembly over any non-compliant ECS duct. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 also prohibits the installation of ECS ducts as replacement parts under certain conditions. 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
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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Material required by Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 11 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by March 31, 2025.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21, dated June 20, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/furnishings.
This AD was prompted by certification testing that found that environmental control system (ECS) ducts manufactured using material APF1180-7781 failed the flammability test requirements established for compliance. The FAA is issuing this AD to address noncompliant ECS ducts that could cause an inability to contain a fire within the cargo compartment. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in an uncontrolled fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
For more information about this AD, contact Brenda Buitrago Perez, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 516-228-7368; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2024-21, dated June 20, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada material identified in this AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2023-10-08, which applies to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, ATR42-300, and ATR42-320 airplanes. AD 2023-10-08 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. Since the FAA issued AD 2023-10-08, the FAA has determined that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. This proposed AD would continue to require certain actions in AD 2023-10-08 and would require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 31, 2025.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For EASA material identified in this proposed AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3220; email
The FAA issued AD 2023-10-08, Amendment 39-22444 (88 FR 36928, June 6, 2023) (AD 2023-10-08), for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, ATR42-300, and ATR42-320 airplanes. AD 2023-10-08 was prompted by an MCAI originated by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA issued AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0199) (which corresponds to FAA AD 2023-10-08), to correct an unsafe condition.
AD 2023-10-08 requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2023-10-08 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Since the FAA issued AD 2023-10-08, EASA superseded AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022, and issued EASA AD 2024-0121, dated June 27, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0121) (referred to after this as the MCAI), for all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, ATR42-300, and ATR42-320 airplanes. The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.
The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0121. This material specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.
This proposed AD would also require EASA AD 2022-0199, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of July 11, 2023 (88 FR 36928, June 6, 2023).
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
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 is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would retain certain requirements of AD 2023-10-08. This proposed AD would also require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, which are specified in EASA AD 2024-0121 already described, as proposed for incorporation by reference. Any differences with EASA AD 2024-0121 are identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.
This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to retain the IBR of EASA AD 2022-0199 and incorporate EASA AD 2024-0121 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0199 and EASA AD 2024-0121 through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0199 or EASA AD 2024-0121 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this proposed AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0199 or EASA AD 2024-0121. Material required by EASA AD 2022-0199 and EASA AD 2024-0121 for compliance will be available at
The FAA's process of incorporating by reference MCAI ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with corresponding FAA ADs has been limited to certain MCAI ADs (primarily those with service bulletins as the primary source of information for accomplishing the actions required by the FAA AD). However, the FAA is now expanding the process to include MCAI ADs that require a change to airworthiness limitation documents,
For these ADs that incorporate by reference an MCAI AD that changes airworthiness limitations, the FAA requirements are unchanged. Operators must revise the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in the new airworthiness limitation document. The airworthiness limitations must be followed according to 14 CFR 91.403(c) and 91.409(e).
The previous format of the airworthiness limitation ADs included a paragraph that specified that no alternative actions (
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 22 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2023-10-08 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 proposed 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.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by March 31, 2025.
This AD replaces AD 2023-10-08, Amendment 39-22444 (88 FR 36928, June 6, 2023) (AD 2023-10-08).
This AD applies to all ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-200, ATR42-300, and ATR42-320 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
This AD was prompted by a determination that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations are necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2023-10-08, with a new terminating action. Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0199). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by paragraph (j) of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.
This paragraph restates the exceptions specified in paragraph (k) of AD 2023-10-08, with no changes.
(1) The requirements specified in paragraph (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2022-0199 do not apply to this AD.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199 specifies revising “the approved AMP” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after July 11, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2023-10-08).
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2022-0199, or within 90 days after July 11, 2023 (the effective date of AD 2023-10-08), whichever occurs later.
(4) The provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2022-0199 do not apply to this AD.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0199.
This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD 2023-10-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, after the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (
Except as specified in paragraph (k) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2024-0121, dated June 27, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0121). Accomplishing the revision of the existing maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.
(1) This AD does not adopt the requirements specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0121.
(2) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0121 specifies revising “the approved AMP,” within 12 months after its effective date, but this AD requires revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
(3) The initial compliance time for doing the tasks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0121 is at the applicable “limitations” and “associated thresholds” as incorporated by the requirements of paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0121, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
(4) This AD does not adopt the provisions specified in paragraphs (4) and (5) of EASA AD 2024-0121.
(5) This AD does not adopt the “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2024-0121.
After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (j) of this AD, no alternative actions (
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3220; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the material listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this material as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(3) The following material was approved for IBR on [DATE 35 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE].
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0121, dated June 27, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(4) The following material was approved for IBR on July 11, 2023 (88 FR 36928, June 6, 2023).
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-0199, dated September 26, 2022.
(ii) [Reserved]
(5) For EASA material identified in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(6) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(7) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Office of Tribal Relations, USDA.
Notice of public, virtual meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Office of Tribal Relations is announcing a meeting of the Tribal Advisory Committee on Tuesday February 18, 2025, at 12 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The Committee is authorized under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the 2018 Farm Bill) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and guidance to USDA on matters related to Tribal and Indian affairs.
A virtual webinar with call-in options will take place on February 18th from 12 p.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Standard Time with public comment going from 3 p.m. to approximately 4 p.m.
General information about the Committee can be found at
An agenda and more information for this meeting will be available at
Be advised that anyone calling into the Zoom teleconference system that is interested in providing public comment will be asked to provide their name, title, and Tribal or organizational affiliations.
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies and consistent with applicable law, will be followed in all membership appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
This meeting notice is being published late due to additional administrative matters of the USDA Department. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of virtual panel briefing.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules
Thursday, March 6, 2025, from 12 p.m.-1 p.m. Eastern Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom.
Melissa Wojnaroski, Designated Federal Officer, at
This Committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may attend this meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make oral statements as time allows. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning is available by selecting “CC” in the meeting platform. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the scheduled meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Evelyn Bohor at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
United States Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of Commission public business meeting.
Friday, February 21, 2025, 10:00 a.m. EST.
Meeting to take place in person and is open to the public.
It will also be livestreamed on the Commission's YouTube page:
Joe Kim: 202-376-7700;
In accordance with the Government in Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), the Commission on Civil Rights is holding a meeting to discuss the Commission's business for the month of February. This business meeting is open to the public. Computer assisted real-time transcription (CART) will be provided. The web link to access CART (in English) on Friday, February 21, 2025, is
Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the notification of proposed production activity submitted by Rincon Power, LLC for its facility in Carpinteria, California, within FTZ 205. The notification was docketed on January 30, 2025 (90 FR 9133-9134, February 7, 2025). The withdrawal was requested by Rincon Power, LLC on February 5, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of issuance of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine
The LOA is effective from February 15, 2025 through December 31, 2025.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Jenna Harlacher, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOM over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses, and became effective on April 19, 2021.
The regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.
TGS plans to conduct a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over approximately 245 lease blocks in the Mississippi Canyon, Ewin Bank, South Timbalier, and Grand Isle-South Addition areas, with water depths ranging from approximately 50 to 1,800 m. See section F of the LOA application for a map of the area. TGS anticipates using two source vessels with a low-frequency dual barbell source known as Gemini. Please see TGS's application for additional detail.
The Gemini source was not included in the acoustic exposure modeling developed in support of the rule. However, the Gemini was described and evaluated in support of a previous LOA and we rely on that analysis here (88 FR 72739, October 23, 2023). For additional detail regarding the source, see section C of the LOA application. Based on this information we have determined there will be no effects of a magnitude or intensity different from those evaluated in support of the rules. NMFS expects that use of modeling results supporting the final rule are expected to be conservative as a proxy for use in evaluating potential impacts of use of the Gemini.
The survey effort proposed by TGS in its LOA request was used to develop LOA-specific take estimates based on the acoustic exposure modeling results described in our rule preamble (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024). In order to generate the appropriate take number for authorization, the following information was considered: (1) survey type; (2) location (by modeling zone
No 3D OBN surveys were included in the modeled survey types, and use of existing proxies (
The survey will take place over approximately 83 days with 62 days of sound source operation, including 10 in zone 2 and 52 in zone 5. The monthly distribution of survey days is not known in advance, so take estimates for each species are based on the time period that produces the greatest value.
For the Rice's whale, recent survey data, sightings, and acoustic data support Rice's whale occurrence in waters throughout the GOM between approximately 100 m and 400 m depth along the continental shelf break, and associated habitat-based density modeling has identified similar habitat (
TGS's planned activities will overlap this depth range, with approximately 25 percent of the area expected to be ensonified by the survey above root-mean-squared pressure received levels (RMS SPL) of 160 decibel (dB) (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 μPa)) overlapping the 100-400 m isobaths. Therefore, there is some reasonable potential for take of Rice's whale to occur in association with this survey. The generic acoustic exposure modeling results in one take of Rice's whales and we have rounded that up to a group size, authorizing two Rice's whale takes.
Based on the results of our analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the 2024 final rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (89 FR 31535, April 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
The take numbers for authorization are determined as described above in the Summary of Request and Analysis section. Subsequently, the total incidents of harassment for each species are multiplied by scalar ratios to produce a derived product that better reflects the number of individuals likely to be taken within a survey (as compared to the total number of instances of take), accounting for the likelihood that some individual marine mammals may be taken on more than 1 day (86 FR 5404, January 19, 2021; 89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). The output of this scaling, where appropriate, is incorporated into adjusted total take estimates that are the basis for NMFS' small numbers determinations, as depicted in table 1.
This product is used by NMFS in making the necessary small numbers determinations through comparison with the best available abundance estimates (see discussion at 86 FR 5391, January 19, 2021). For this comparison, NMFS' approach is to use the maximum theoretical population, determined through review of current stock assessment reports (SAR;
Based on the analysis contained herein of TGS's proposed survey activity described in its LOA application and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the affected species or stock sizes (
NMFS has determined that the level of taking for this LOA request is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the incidental take regulations and that the amount of take authorized under the LOA is of no more than small numbers. Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to TGS authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to its geophysical survey activity, as described above.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of modification to expiration date of letter of authorization.
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, its implementing regulations, and NMFS' MMPA Regulations for Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Geophysical Surveys Related to Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), notification is hereby given that NMFS has modified the expiration date of a Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued to bp Exploration and Production, Inc., (bp) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activity in the GOM.
This LOA is effective through March 31, 2025.
The LOA, LOA request, and supporting documentation are available online at:
Rachel Wachtendonk, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which: (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On January 19, 2021, we issued a final rule with regulations to govern the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to geophysical survey activities conducted by oil and gas industry operators, and those persons authorized to conduct activities on their behalf (collectively “industry operators”), in U.S. waters of the GOM over the course of 5 years (86 FR 5322, January 19, 2021). The rule was based on our findings that the total taking from the specified activities over the 5-year period will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of those species or stocks for subsistence uses. The rule became effective on April 19, 2021.
Our regulations at 50 CFR 217.180
NMFS subsequently discovered that the 2021 rule was based on erroneous take estimates. We conducted another rulemaking using correct take estimates and other newly available and pertinent information relevant to the analyses supporting some of the findings in the 2021 final rule and the taking allowable under the regulations. We issued a final rule in April 2024, effective May 24, 2024 (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
The 2024 final rule made no changes to the specified activities or the specified geographical region in which those activities would be conducted, nor to the original 5-year period of effectiveness. In consideration of the new information, the 2024 rule presented new analyses supporting affirmance of the negligible impact determinations for all species, and affirmed that the existing regulations, which contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements, are consistent with the “least practicable adverse impact” standard of the MMPA.
NMFS issued a LOA to bp on September 9, 2024, for the take of marine mammals incidental to a three-dimensional (3D) ocean bottom node (OBN) survey over 325 lease blocks in the Alaminos Canyon, Garden Banks, Keathley Canyon, and East Breaks areas, effective September 9, 2024, through February 14, 2025. Please see the
Bp has requested that the February 14, 2025, expiration date be extended to March 31, 2025, as they are using only one source vessel instead of the planned two. There are no other changes to the planned survey or our earlier analyses, as described in the previous notice of LOA issuance for this survey (89 FR 74921, September 13, 2024).
Based on the results of our earlier analysis, NMFS has determined that the level of taking expected for this survey and authorized through the LOA is consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the regulations. See table 1 in this notice and table 6 of the rule (89 FR 31488, April 24, 2024).
Under the GOM rule, NMFS may not authorize incidental take of marine mammals in an LOA if it will exceed “small numbers.” In short, when an acceptable estimate of the individual marine mammals taken is available, if the estimated number of individual animals taken is up to, but not greater than, one-third of the best available abundance estimate, NMFS will determine that the numbers of marine mammals taken of a species or stock are small (89 FR 31535, May 24, 2024). For more information please see NMFS' discussion of small numbers in the 2021 final rule (86 FR 5438, January 19, 2021).
NMFS made its small numbers determinations in the original notice of LOA issuance for the survey (89 FR 74921, September 13, 2024) based on the information provided in table 1, which has not changed.
NMFS has changed the expiration date of the LOA from February 14, 2025, to March 31, 2025. There are no other changes to the LOA as described in the September 13, 2024,
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; cancellation of public meeting.
On January 3, 2025, NMFS published a notice in the
Emily Reynolds, Pacific Islands Regional Office, tel. 808-725-5039 or
On January 3, 2025, NMFS published a notice in the
Per 45 CFR 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for February 20, 2025, at 9 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.
Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (EIS) to address the November 27, 2024
On July 28, 2023, the Commission staff issued a final EIS for the Project. On June 27, 2024, the Commission issued an
The Commission mailed a copy of the
The draft supplemental EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the Commission to consider when addressing the merits of issues in this proceeding. Any person wishing to comment on the draft supplemental EIS may do so. Your comments should focus on the draft supplemental EIS's disclosure and discussion of potential environmental effects. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final supplemental EIS,
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP22-21 and CP22-22) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Debbie-Anne A. Reese, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that on January 30, 2025, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to abandon one (1) injection/withdrawal well, connecting pipeline, and appurtenant facilities located at the Terra Alta Storage Field in Preston County, West Virginia. The estimated cost for the project is $775,000, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5477, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions,
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before April 8, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-56-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-56-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that on January 30, 2025, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000,
Columbia concludes that plugging and abandoning Wells 7527 and 7536 will limit integrity risk in alignment with the guidance of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Storage Final Rule. The estimated cost for the project is $1.4 million, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to David A. Alonzo, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5477, or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before April 8, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-55-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-55-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: David A. Alonzo, Manager of Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or by email at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that on January 30, 2025, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to abandon one injection/withdrawal well, connecting pipeline, and appurtenant facilities located at the Holmes Storage Field in Holmes County, Ohio (2025 Holmes Well 7514 Abandonment Project). Columbia has determined that Well 7514 does not provide significant value in terms of flow performance or in meeting integrity standards, as outlined by the PHMSA Storage Final Rule. The well is underperforming and contributes only a minimal amount to the total deliverability of the Holmes Storage Field. The estimated cost for the project is $818,000, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 502-6652
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, by phone at (832) 320-5477 or by email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2025. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, community organizations, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before April 8, 2025. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP25-57-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP25-57-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail at: David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, or by email (with a link to the document) at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. For more information and to register, go to
On January 28, 2025, Low Head Hydro M 18, LLC. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project proposed to be located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) Mississippi River Lock and Dam 18 in Des Moines County, IA, and Henderson County, IL. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Mississippi River Lock and Dam 18 Hydroelectric Project would consist of the following: (1) A proposed 300-foot by 200-foot masonry and steel powerhouse located in alignment with the existing Corps' dam, containing four proposed Kaplan bulb or Kaplan pit turbines with a total capacity of 25.43 megawatts; (2) a proposed intake channel of unlined earthen excavation approximately 250 feet long and 300 feet wide, located upstream of the turbine bays and including a 175-foot-long guide wall along the western side of the channel; (3) a proposed 850-foot-long and 300-foot-wide tailrace area of unlined earthen excavation including a 850-foot-long guide wall along the western side of the channel; (4) a proposed 75-foot by 75-foot masonry control building located on the Iowa shoreline containing switchgear, controls, communications, and ancillary equipment; (5) a proposed 50-foot by 75-foot project substation located adjacent to the control building containing a three-phase step-up transformer with a rating between 15 to 25 megawatt-ampere; (6) a 1,600-foot-long and 40-foot-wide pedestrian bridge improved and extended to provide access to the powerhouse along with a proposed public park and parking area adjacent to the control building; and (7) a proposed approx. 2,200-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt (kv) underground transmission line to the project substation and a proposed approx. 3,600-foot-long, 69-kv transmission line from the substation to the existing 69-kv Des Moines Drainage District Pump substation. The proposed project would have an estimated annual generation of 126,800 megawatt-hours.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice of Federal Advisory committee meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC or Committee), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Committee advises the Federal Maritime Commission (Commission). The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting and discussing information, insight, and expertise pertaining to conditions in the ocean freight delivery system relevant to the Commission.
The Committee will meet in person in Long Beach, California, on March 5, 2025, from 2:30 p.m. until 4:30 p.m. Pacific time. Please note that this
The meeting will be held at the Long Beach Convention Center located at 300 E Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, California. This meeting will follow the TPM Conference and will be open to the public. Members of the public do not need to register for the TPM Conference to attend the NSAC meeting. The meeting will also be streamed live on the Federal Maritime Commission's YouTube channel. If technical issues prevent the Committee from streaming live, the Committee will post a recording of the meeting on the Commission's YouTube channel following the meeting.
Mr. Mark Bragança, Designated Federal Officer of the National Shipper Advisory Committee, phone: (202) 523-5725; email:
Members of the public may also submit written comments to NSAC at any time. Comments should be addressed to NSAC, c/o Mark Bragança, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC 25073 or
A copy of all meeting documentation, including minutes, will be available at
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of Federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2025.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Jarad Brown (202-326-2927) and David Walko (202-326-2880), Attorneys, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 400 7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule § 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 17, 2025. Write “GoDaddy; File No. 202 3133” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Because of heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from GoDaddy Inc. and
Respondent GoDaddy Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Arizona. Respondent
Since at least 2015, the Commission alleges, Respondents have marketed their services as a secure choice for customers to host their websites, touting their commitment to data security. Respondents have also stated that they comply with the Privacy Shield Framework principles, which include a promise to take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect the security of personal information. As alleged in the complaint, in fact, Respondents' data security practices were not reasonable for their size and complexity. GoDaddy did not have reasonable visibility into vulnerabilities and threats affecting its hosting services. Since 2018, GoDaddy has failed to implement standard security tools and practices to protect its hosting services and to monitor them for security threats. In particular, GoDaddy allegedly failed to: (a) inventory and manage assets; (b) manage software updates; (c) assess risks to its website hosting services; (d) use multi-factor authentication; (e) log security-related events; (f) monitor for security threats, including by failing to use software that could actively detect threats from its many logs, and failing to use file integrity monitoring; (g) segment its network; and (h) secure connections to services that provide access to consumer data. In light of these failures, the Commission challenged GoDaddy's representations about security and adhering to the Privacy Shield Framework principles as false or misleading. As a result of Respondents' data security failures, as alleged in the complaint, they experienced several incidents of unauthorized access to their hosting service between 2019 and December 2022, in which threat actors repeatedly gained access to customers' websites and data, causing harm to Respondents' customers and putting them and visitors to the customers' websites at risk of further harm.
The Commission's proposed three-count complaint alleges that Respondents engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act by (1) unfairly failing to employ reasonable and appropriate data security measures, (2) deceptively representing that they used reasonable and appropriate data security measures, and (3) deceptively representing that they adhere to the EU-U.S. and/or Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Principles. With respect to the first count, the proposed complaint alleges that Respondents failed to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect their hosting environment from unauthorized access. Respondents' failure to employ such reasonable and appropriate measures has caused or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers in the form of several data breaches between 2019 and 2022, theft of Respondents' customers' confidential information stored in Respondents' hosting services, and alteration of Respondents' customers' websites. These injuries are not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition and are not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves.
The Proposed Order contains injunctive relief designed to prevent Respondents from engaging in the same or similar acts or practices in the future. Provision I prohibits Respondents from misrepresenting, expressly or by implication: (1) the extent to which they protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of their hosting services; (2) the extent to which they use reasonable or appropriate measures to protect certain hosting services from unauthorized access; (3) the extent to which they utilize any security technology or technique, including monitoring, to protect certain hosting services; (4) the extent to which they protect the security, confidentiality, integrity, or availability of consumers' personal information; and (5) the extent to which Respondents are a member of, adhere to, comply with, are certified by, are endorsed by, or otherwise participate in any privacy or security program sponsored by a government or any self-regulatory or standard-setting organization, including the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.
Provision II requires that Respondents establish, implement, and document a comprehensive information security program. The program must include specific security measures tailored to Respondents' previous data security shortcomings alleged in the complaint. Provisions III-VI require that Respondents obtain initial and biennial information security assessments by an independent, third-party professional for 20 years (Provision III), cooperate with the independent assessor (Provision IV), provide the Commission with annual certifications of compliance with the Order from a senior executive officer from each Respondent (Provision V), and submit reports to the Commission if they suffer additional data incidents (Provision VI).
Provisions VII-X are reporting and compliance provisions, which include recordkeeping requirements and provisions requiring Respondents to
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Proposed Order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or Proposed Order, or to modify the Proposed Order's terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The FTC seeks public comments on the agency's shared enforcement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of the information collection requirements in CFPB's rule on Duties of Consumer Reporting Agencies Regarding Disclosures to Consumers (Rule). That clearance expires on April 30, 2025.
Comments must be filed by April 14, 2025.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Ryan Mehm, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2918,
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Rule.
Because the FTC shares enforcement authority with the CFPB for subpart N, the two agencies split between them the related estimate of PRA burden for firms under their co-enforcement jurisdiction. Estimated PRA burden, excluding the halving (to be shown at the conclusion of this analysis), are as follows:
When the FTC last sought clearance renewal for the Rule, we estimated 34 million requests per year as a representative average to calculate PRA burden, and noted that the Commission was seeking more recent estimates of the number of requests consumers are making for free credit reports. Since that time, the Consumer Data Industry Association (“CDIA”) estimated that in 2023 and 2024, the nationwide consumer reporting agencies provided on average approximately 17 million free annual file disclosures through the centralized internet website required to be established by the FACT Act and subpart N. Based on its knowledge of the industry, FTC staff projected that during this same time period of 2023 and 2024 the consumer reporting agencies provided no more than 2 million free annual file disclosures through the centralized toll-free telephone number and postal address required to be established by the FACT Act and subpart N. We expect that the number of requests for free annual credit reports will rise over the next three years because of increases in the population and consumer awareness that they are entitled to a free annual report. As a proxy, we are now estimating 21 million requests per year as a representative average year to estimate PRA burden for purposes of the instant analysis.
The Commission seeks recent data on how these requests are being received—by internet, phone, or by mail.
Both nationwide and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies will likely handle the overwhelming majority of consumer requests through internet websites. The annual file disclosure requests processed through the internet will impose a
Most of the telephone requests for annual file disclosures will also be handled in an automated fashion, with
Based on their knowledge of the industry, staff believes that no more than 1% of consumers (1% × 21 million, or 210,000) will request an annual file disclosure through U.S. postal service mail. Staff estimates that clerical personnel will require 10 minutes per request to handle these requests, thereby totaling 35,000 hours of time. [(210,000 × 10 minutes)/60 minutes per hour = 35,000 hours.]
In addition, whenever the requesting consumer cannot be identified using an automated method (a website or automated telephone service), it will be necessary to redirect that consumer to send identifying material along with the request by mail. Staff estimates that this will occur in about 5% of the new requests (or 1,039,500)
The Rule also requires that certain instructions be provided to consumers.
Labor costs are derived by applying median hourly cost figures to the burden hours described above. Staff anticipates that processing of requests for annual file disclosures and instructions will be performed by clerical personnel and estimates that the processing will require 229,075 hours at an annual cost of $4,760,179. [(35,000 hours for handling initial mail requests + 173,250 hours for handling requests redirected to mail + 20,825 hours for handling instructions mailed to consumers) × $20.78 per hour.
As elaborated on above, staff estimates that a total of 14,560 labor hours will be needed to negotiate or renegotiate outsourced service contracts annually (or as conditions otherwise change) to increase internet (8,320 hours) and telephone (6,240 hours) capacity requirements for internet web services and the automated telephone call center. This will result in approximately $1,186,640 per year in labor costs. [14,560 hours × $81.50 per hour.
Thus, estimated cumulative annual labor costs are $5,946,819.
As in the previous PRA clearance analysis, FTC staff believes it is likely that consumer reporting agencies will use third-party contractors (instead of their own employees) to increase the capacity of their systems. Because of the way these contracts are typically established, these costs will likely be incurred on a continuing basis and will be calculated based on the number of requests handled by the systems. Staff estimates that the total annual amount to be paid for services delivered under these contracts is $8,021,000.
After halving the updated estimates to split the PRA burden with the CFPB regarding the Rule, the FTC's burden totals are 121,818 hours, $2,973,410 in associated labor costs, and $4,010,500 in capital/non-labor costs.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure and recordkeeping requirements are necessary, including whether the information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information.
For the FTC to consider a comment, we must receive it on or before April 14,
You can file a comment online or on paper. Due to heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Regulation V, subpart N; PRA Comment, P085405,” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will become publicly available at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must (1) be filed in paper form, (2) be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and (3) comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 14, 2025. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies Federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITFs) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines) using Urine and the laboratories currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid.
Anastasia Flanagan, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N06B, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice);
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) publishes a notice listing all HHS-certified laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITFs) in the
If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.
This notice is also available on the internet at
HHS separately notifies Federal agencies of the laboratories and IITFs currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine and of the laboratories currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid.
The Mandatory Guidelines using Urine were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid were first published in the
The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71 and allowed urine drug testing only. The Mandatory Guidelines using Urine have since been revised, and new Mandatory Guidelines allowing for oral fluid drug testing have been published. The Mandatory Guidelines require strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on specimens for Federal agencies. HHS does not allow IITFs to conduct oral fluid testing.
To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance
Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines using Urine and/or Oral Fluid. An HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that the test facility has met minimum standards. HHS does not allow IITFs to conduct oral fluid testing.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Oral Fluid effective October 10, 2023 (88 FR 70814), the following HHS-certified laboratories meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on oral fluid specimens:
At this time, there are no laboratories certified to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on oral fluid specimens.
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine effective February 1, 2024 (88 FR 70768), the following HHS-certified IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines using Urine effective February 1, 2024 (88 FR 70768), the following HHS-certified laboratories meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:
The following laboratory is voluntarily withdrawing from the National Laboratory Certification Program effective January 10, 2025:
* The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories continued under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.
Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory as meeting the minimum standards of the current Mandatory Guidelines published in the
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2024 (89 FR 54533) and determined on October 4, 2024, that it would conduct an expedited review (89 FR 87598, November 4, 2024).
The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determination in this review on February 10, 2025. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5586 (February 2025), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on acetone from Belgium, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, and Spain would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
February 4, 2025.
Peter Stebbins (202-205-2039), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On February 4, 2025, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Benuvia Operations, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 14, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 14, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 4, 2024, Benuvia Operations, LLC, 3950 North
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for internal research and dosage formulation development. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Veranova, L.P. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 17, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 17, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on November 15, 2024, Veranova, L.P., 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1727, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import Coca Leaves (9040), Opium, raw (9600), and Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) in order to bulk manufacture Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) for distribution to its customers. The company plans to also import Thebaine (9333), Noroxymorphone (9668), and Fentanyl (9801) to use as analytical reference standards, both internally and to be sold to their customers to support testing of Veranova, L.P. APIs only. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Purisys, LLC has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 17, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 17, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 10, 2024, Purisys, LLC, 1550 Olympic Drive, Athens, Georgia 30601-1602, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import Opium, Raw (9600), Opium, Powdered (9639) and Opium, Granulated (9640) to manufacture an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) only for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import Phenylacetone (8501) and Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670), to bulk manufacture other controlled substances for distribution to its customers. The company plans to import impurities of buprenorphine that have been determined by DEA to be captured under Thebaine (9333). In reference to Marihuana Extract (7350), Marihuana (7360), and Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), the company plans to import as synthetic. The company plans to import an isomer of methadone (9250) not currently available domestically to manufacture a non-controlled substance. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic class(es) of controlled substances listed in schedule I. DEA intends to evaluate this and other pending applications according to its regulations governing the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 14, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may submit electronic comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If the application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a). DEA will conduct this evaluation in the manner described in the rule published at 85 FR 82333 on December 18, 2020, and reflected in DEA regulations at 21 CFR part 1318.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on July 1, 2024, University of Kentucky Cannabis Center, 845 Angliana Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky 40508, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substances:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Maridose LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 14, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 14, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 30, 2024, Maridose LLC, 74 Orion Street, Unit 7, Brunswick, Maine 04011, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to supply the Drug Enforcement Administration-registered researchers for their approval studies. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Mylan Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 17, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 17, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 10, 2024, Mylan Inc., 3711 Collins Ferry Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505-2362, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the listed controlled substances as bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients for internal testing purposes only and finished dosage forms for analytical testing and distribution for clinical trials to support foreign market participation. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants, therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 17, 2025. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 17, 2025.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 5, 2024, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Buildings 1-5 & 7-14, Athens, Georgia 30601-1645, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import for analytical purposes. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
National Intelligence University (NIU), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Intelligence University Board of Visitors.
ODNI is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the NIU Board of Visitors (BoV) will take place. This meeting is closed to the public.
Thursday, 27 March, 2025 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Bethesda, MD.
National Intelligence University, 4600 Sangamore Road, Bethesda, MD 20816.
Ms. Patricia “Patty” Larsen, Designated Federal Officer, (301) 243-2118 (Voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. 1001-1014), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. The meeting includes the discussion of classified information and classified materials regarding intelligence education issues, internal personnel rules and practices of NIU, and pre-decisional strategic planning matters; and the Director of National Intelligence, or her designee, in consultation with the ODNI Office of General Counsel, has determined the meeting will be closed to the public under the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), 552b(c)(2), and 552b(c)(9)(B).
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. Applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. Standardized distinct products are negotiated service agreements that are variations of one or more Competitive products, and for which financial models, minimum rates, and classification criteria have undergone advance Commission review.
1.
2.
3.
4.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 3, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 4, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 6, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 3, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 3, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
On December 17, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list options on the Fidelity Ethereum Fund. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3(i)(4) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on shares or other securities (“Fund Shares”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS stock” under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS and that represent interests in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Fidelity Fund”).
The Fidelity Fund is an Ethereum-backed commodity ETF structured as a trust. Similar to any Fund Share currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Rule 19.3(i), the investment objective of the Fidelity Fund is for its shares to reflect the performance of Ethereum (less the expenses of the trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Ethereum without the complexities of Ethereum delivery. As is the case for Fund Shares currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the Fidelity Fund's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Ethereum and are designed to track Ethereum or the performance of the price of Ethereum and offer access to the Ethereum market.
The Exchange believes the Fidelity Fund satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for Fund Shares on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the Fidelity Fund satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Rule 19.3(i), as is the case for other Fund Shares on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Rule 19.3(i)(1) requires that Fund Shares either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Fidelity Fund satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b). Pursuant to Rule 19.3(a), a security (which includes a Fund Share) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)), and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of December 23, 2024, the Fidelity Fund had 41,700,000 shares outstanding, which is nearly six times more than the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock (
Further, as of November 26, 2024, there were 38,170 beneficial holders of shares of the Fidelity Fund, which is significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 19 times more), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b). Therefore, the Exchange believes the shares of the Fidelity Fund are widely held.
The Exchange also believes the shares of the Fidelity Fund are actively traded. As of December 23, 2024, the total trading volume (by shares) and the approximate average daily volume (“ADV”) (in shares and notional) from July 23, 2024 (the date on which shares of the Fidelity Fund began trading) to December 23, 2024 for the Fidelity Fund was as follows:
As demonstrated above, despite the fact that the Fidelity Fund has been trading for approximately five months as of December 23, 2024, its total trading volume as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (more than 48 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a corporate stock in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 19.3(b). Additionally, as of December 23, 2024, the trading volume for the Fidelity Fund was in the top 5% of all ETFs that are currently trading. The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the Fidelity Fund is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Fidelity Fund will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Rule 19.4(g) for Fund Shares deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Specifically, 19.4(g) provides that Fund Shares that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3 will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if the security ceases to be an NMS stock (see Rule 19.4(b)(4)). Additionally, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering Fund Shares in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved for trading under Rule 19.3(i)(4)(A), in accordance with the terms of Rule 19.4(b)(1), (2) and (3); (2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Rule 19.3(i)(4)(B), following the initial 12-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Fund Shares on a national securities exchange and are defined as NMS stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, there were fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Fund Shares for 30 consecutive days; (3) the value of the index, non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments or Money Market Instruments, or portfolio of securities on which the Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the Fidelity Fund will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .01, which governs strike prices of series of options on Fund Shares, the interval of strikes prices for series of options on the Fidelity Fund will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
Pursuant to Rules 18.7 and 18.9, the position and exercise limits, respectively, for Fidelity Fund options will be 25,000 same side option contracts.
The Exchange believes these proposed position and exercise limits are reasonable and appropriate considering, among other things, the ADV (since trading of the Fidelity Fund began on July 23, 2024) and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund (which as discussed above demonstrate that the Fidelity Fund is widely held and actively traded and thus justify these conservatively proposed position limits), as set forth below, along with market capitalization (as of December 23, 2024):
The Exchange then compared the number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund to those of other ETFs. The approximate average position (and exercise limit) of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of December 31, 2024) was approximately 102,703 contracts, which is significantly higher (approximately 4 times) than the proposed position and exercise limit of 25,000 contracts for Fidelity Fund options.
With respect to outstanding shares, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent approximately 6.0% of the 41,700,000 current outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund. Therefore, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in Fidelity Fund options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund.
Cboe Options Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02 (which governs position limits on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 18.7), provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume
The table, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares that an underlying stock or ETF must have to qualify for that position limit (under the second method described above).
The equivalent shares represented by the proposed position and exercise limits for the Fidelity Fund as a percentage of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund is significantly lower than the percentage for the lowest possible position limit for equity options of 25,000, which is the position limit the Exchange is proposing for Fidelity Fund options.
Further, the proposed position and exercise limit for Fidelity Fund options is equal to the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry for equity options, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund. The proposed position and exercise limit for the Fidelity Fund is also equal to the position and exercise limits for ETFs that hold Bitcoin, as recently approved by the Commission.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for Fidelity Fund options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund demonstrate that its shares are actively traded and widely held, and proposed position and exercise limit is well below those of options on other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limit would be the lowest position and exercise limit available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given the Fidelity Fund's market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares.
Fidelity Fund options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Fidelity Fund options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity Fund Shares already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Rule 19.3(i).
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Fidelity Fund that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) for certain market surveillance, investigation and examinations functions. Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate amongst themselves and FINRA responsibilities to conduct certain options-related market surveillance that are common to rules of all options exchanges.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the Fidelity Fund up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. Because the proposal is limited to one class, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of Fidelity Fund options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Fidelity Fund will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Ethereum and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Fidelity Fund in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Fidelity Fund will provide investors with an opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the Fidelity Fund, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering Fidelity Fund options will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of Ethereum and with Ethereum-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Fidelity Fund options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists (or has the authority to list) options on other commodity-based Fund Shares,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits in this are 25,000 contracts, which is currently the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF options) and the position and exercise limits that apply to comparable ETFs that hold Bitcoin.
Further, given that the issuer of the Fidelity Fund may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in Ethereum, the Exchange believes it is relevant to compare the size of a position limit to the market capitalization of the Ethereum market. As of December 23, 2024, the global supply of Ethereum was approximately 120,000,000 coins, and the price of one Ethereum coin was approximately $3,494.25,
The Exchange also believes the proposed position and exercise limits are appropriate given position limits for Ethereum futures. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) imposes a position limit of 8,000 futures (for the initial spot month) on its Ethereum futures contract.
The Exchange notes, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits will have no material impact to the supply of Ethereum. For example, consider again the proposed position limit of 25,000 option contracts for the Fidelity Fund option. As noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the Fidelity Fund (if that market participant exercised all its options). As of December 23, 2024, the Fidelity Fund had 41,700,000 shares outstanding. This means that the approximate number of market participants that could hold the maximum of 25,000 same side positions in the Fidelity Fund that would equate
This means if 16 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in Fidelity Fund options, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely for such an event to occur; however, even if either such event did occur, the Exchange would not expect the Fidelity Fund to be under stress because such an event would merely induce the creation of more shares through the trust's creation and redemption process.
As of December 23, 2024, the global supply of Ethereum was approximately 120,000,000, and the price of one Ethereum coin was approximately $3,418.00,
The Exchange believes the available supply of Ethereum is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for options overlying the Fidelity Fund.
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for the Fidelity Fund, which described the supply of Ethereum and the potential limits to that supply.
Based on the above information demonstrating, among other things, that the Fidelity Fund is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded and widely held, the Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative compared to those of ETF options with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying as well as the Ethereum market.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new Fidelity Fund options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as options on the Fidelity Fund will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Fidelity Fund options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Commission has approved the trading of options on other commodity-based Fund Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of Fidelity Fund options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering Fidelity Fund options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum prices and Ethereum-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 13, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) adopted Rule 13f-2 (17 CFR 240.13f-2) and related Form SHO
Since the Rule and Form SHO were adopted, Commission staff has been working with industry participants to address operational issues relating to the implementation of Form SHO reporting. Through telephonic meetings and letters, certain institutional investment managers that may meet the reporting thresholds specified in Rule 13f-2 have stated that they need additional time to implement Form SHO reporting.
Before the Commission's publication of the web-fillable version of Form SHO and the related Form SHO XML technical specifications
In addition, the Financial Information Forum (“FIF”) submitted several letters before the publication of the December 16, 2024 Form SHO Documents requesting an extension of the current January 2, 2025 compliance date for Rule 13f-2 and for Form SHO reporting for a “reasonable period (for example six months)” from the date the Commission provides written guidance in response to interpretive questions raised by FIF and other industry participants.
The December 16, 2024 Form SHO Documents provided additional guidance and context for completing Form SHO. On January 20, 2025, following the publication of those documents, the Managed Funds Association (“MFA”) and the Alternative Investment Management Association (“AIMA”) submitted a letter requesting a six-month extension for compliance with the Rule “until July 1, 2025 (or such later date as the Staff deems appropriate).”
The Commission agrees with the concerns expressed by commenters about requiring reporting for activity that occurs beginning on January 2, 2025, when the Form SHO-specific XML technical specifications were issued only a few weeks before that date. After the Commission published the December 16, 2024 Form SHO Documents, commenters suggested a shorter period would be workable—for example, six months “(or such later date as the Staff deems appropriate).”
Section 13(f)(3) of the Exchange Act
The Commission is using its authority under section 13(f)(3) of the Exchange Act to grant a temporary exemption from compliance with Rule 13f-2 and for reporting on Form SHO to give additional time to allow for orderly compliance with Rule 13f-2.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants, pursuant to section 13(f)(3) of the Exchange Act, a temporary exemption from compliance with Rule 13f-2 and Form SHO reporting effective February 7, 2025, and ending January 2, 2026. Therefore, Form SHO reports for the January 2026 reporting period would be required to be filed within 14 calendar days after the end of January 2026.
By the Commission.
On July 23, 2024, NYSE American LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 24, 2024, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as amended,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 13, 2024, NYSE American LLC filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to list options on the Fidelity Ethereum Fund. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3 regarding the criteria for underlying securities. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 19.3(i)(4) to allow the Exchange to list and trade options on shares or other securities (“Fund Shares”) that are principally traded on a national securities exchange and are defined as an “NMS stock” under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS and that represent interests in the Fidelity Ethereum Fund (the “Fidelity Fund”).
The Fidelity Fund is an Ethereum-backed commodity ETF structured as a trust. Similar to any Fund Share currently deemed appropriate for options trading under Rule 19.3(i), the investment objective of the Fidelity Fund is for its shares to reflect the performance of Ethereum (less the expenses of the trust's operations), offering investors an opportunity to gain exposure to Ethereum without the complexities of Ethereum delivery. As is the case for Fund Shares currently deemed appropriate for options trading, the Fidelity Fund's shares represent units of fractional undivided beneficial interest in the trust, the assets of which consist principally of Ethereum and are designed to track Ethereum or the performance of the price of Ethereum and offer access to the Ethereum market.
The Exchange believes the Fidelity Fund satisfies the Exchange's initial listing standards for Fund Shares on which the Exchange may list options. Specifically, the Fidelity Fund satisfies the initial listing standards set forth in Rule 19.3(i), as is the case for other Fund Shares on which the Exchange lists options (including trusts that hold commodities). Rule 19.3(i)(1) requires that Fund Shares either (1) meet the criteria and standards set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b),
While not required by the Rules for purposes of options listings, the Exchange believes the Fidelity Fund satisfies the criteria and guidelines set forth in Rule 19.3(a) and (b). Pursuant to Rule 19.3(a), a security (which includes a Fund Share) on which options may be listed and traded on the Exchange must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) and be an NMS stock (as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Act”)), and be characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are widely held and actively traded.
As of December 23, 2024, the Fidelity Fund had 41,700,000 shares outstanding, which is nearly six times more than the minimum number of shares of a corporate stock (
Further, as of November 26, 2024, there were 38,170 beneficial holders of shares of the Fidelity Fund, which is significantly more than 2,000 beneficial holders (approximately 19 times more), which is the minimum number of holders the Exchange generally requires for corporate stock in order to list options on that stock pursuant to Rule 19.3(b). Therefore, the Exchange believes the shares of the Fidelity Fund are widely held.
The Exchange also believes the shares of the Fidelity Fund are actively traded. As of December 23, 2024, the total trading volume (by shares) and the approximate average daily volume (“ADV”) (in shares and notional) from July 23, 2024 (the date on which shares of the Fidelity Fund began trading) to December 23, 2024 for the Fidelity Fund was as follows:
As demonstrated above, despite the fact that the Fidelity Fund has been trading for approximately five months as of December 23, 2024, its total trading volume as of that date was substantially higher than 2,400,000 shares (more than 48 times that amount), which is the minimum 12-month volume the Exchange generally requires for a corporate stock in order to list options on that security as set forth in Rule 19.3(b). Additionally, as of December 23, 2024, the trading volume for the Fidelity Fund was in the top 5% of all ETFs that are currently trading. The Exchange believes this data demonstrates the Fidelity Fund is characterized as having shares that are actively traded.
Options on the Fidelity Fund will be subject to the Exchange's continued listing standards set forth in Rule 19.4(g) for Fund Shares deemed appropriate for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3(i). Specifically, 19.4(g) provides that Fund Shares that were initially approved for options trading pursuant to Rule 19.3 will not be deemed to meet the requirements for continued approval, and the Exchange shall not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering such Fund Shares if the security ceases to be an NMS stock (see Rule 19.4(b)(4)). Additionally, the Exchange will not open for trading any additional series of option contracts of the class covering Fund Shares in any of the following circumstances: (1) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved for trading under Rule 19.3(i)(4)(A), in accordance with the terms of Rule 19.4(b)(1), (2) and (3); (2) in the case of options covering Fund Shares approved pursuant to Rule 19.3(i)(4)(B), following the initial 12-month period beginning upon the commencement of trading in the Fund Shares on a national securities exchange and are defined as NMS stock under Rule 600 of Regulation NMS, there were fewer than 50 record and/or beneficial holders of such Fund Shares for 30 consecutive days; (3) the value of the index, non-U.S. currency, portfolio of commodities including commodity futures contracts, options on commodity futures contracts, swaps, forward contracts and/or options on physical commodities and/or Financial Instruments or Money Market Instruments, or portfolio of securities on which the Fund Shares are based is no longer calculated or available; or (4) such other event occurs or condition exists that in the opinion of the Exchange makes further dealing in such options on the Exchange inadvisable.
Options on the Fidelity Fund will be physically settled contracts with American-style exercise.
Pursuant to Rule 19.6, Interpretation and Policy .01, which governs strike prices of series of options on Fund Shares, the interval of strikes prices for series of options on the Fidelity Fund will be $1 or greater when the strike price is $200 or less and $5 or greater where the strike price is over $200.
Pursuant to Rules 18.7 and 18.9, the position and exercise limits, respectively, for Fidelity Fund options will be 25,000 same side option contracts.
The Exchange believes these proposed position and exercise limits are reasonable and appropriate considering, among other things, the ADV (since trading of the Fidelity Fund began on July 23, 2024) and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund (which as discussed above demonstrate that the Fidelity Fund is widely held and actively traded and thus justify these conservatively proposed position limits), as set forth below, along with market capitalization (as of December 23, 2024):
The Exchange then compared the number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund to those of other ETFs. The approximate average position (and exercise limit) of ETF options with similar outstanding shares (as of December 31, 2024) was approximately 102,703 contracts, which is significantly higher (approximately 4 times) than the proposed position and exercise limit of 25,000 contracts for Fidelity Fund options.
With respect to outstanding shares, if a market participant held the maximum number of positions possible pursuant to the proposed position and exercise limits, the equivalent shares represented by the proposed position/exercise limit would represent approximately 6.0% of the 41,700,000 current outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund. Therefore, if a market participant held the maximum permissible options positions in Fidelity Fund options and exercised all of them at the same time, that market participant would control a small percentage of the outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund.
Cboe Options Rule 8.30, Interpretation and Policy .02 (which governs position limits on the Exchange pursuant to Rule 18.7), provides two methods of qualifying for a position limit tier above 25,000 option contracts. The first method is based on six-month trading volume in the underlying security, and the second method is based on slightly lower six-month trading volume
The table, which provides the equivalent shares of the position limits applicable to equity options, including ETFs, further represents the percentages of the minimum number of outstanding shares that an underlying stock or ETF must have to qualify for that position limit (under the second method described above).
The equivalent shares represented by the proposed position and exercise limits for the Fidelity Fund as a percentage of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund is significantly lower than the percentage for the lowest possible position limit for equity options of 25,000, which is the position limit the Exchange is proposing for Fidelity Fund options.
Further, the proposed position and exercise limit for Fidelity Fund options is equal to the lowest position and exercise limits available in the options industry for equity options, are extremely conservative and more than appropriate given the market capitalization, average daily volume, and high number of outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund. The proposed position and exercise limit for the Fidelity Fund is also equal to the position and exercise limits for ETFs that hold Bitcoin, as recently approved by the Commission.
All of the above information demonstrates that the proposed position and exercise limits for Fidelity Fund options are more than reasonable and appropriate. The trading volume, ADV, and outstanding shares of the Fidelity Fund demonstrate that its shares are actively traded and widely held, and proposed position and exercise limit is well below those of options on other ETFs with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limit would be the lowest position and exercise limit available for equity options in the industry, are extremely conservative, and are more than appropriate given the Fidelity Fund's market capitalization, ADV, and high number of outstanding shares.
Fidelity Fund options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options on the Exchange. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Fidelity Fund options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange, including the precious-metal backed commodity Fund Shares already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange pursuant to current Rule 19.3(i).
Today, the Exchange has an adequate surveillance program in place for options. The Exchange intends to apply those same program procedures to options on the Fidelity Fund that it applies to the Exchange's other options products.
In addition, the Exchange has a Regulatory Services Agreement with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) for certain market surveillance, investigation and examinations functions. Pursuant to a multi-party 17d-2 joint plan, all options exchanges allocate amongst themselves and FINRA responsibilities to conduct certain options-related market surveillance that are common to rules of all options exchanges.
The Exchange has also analyzed its capacity and represents that it believes the Exchange and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to handle the additional traffic associated with the listing of new series that may result from the introduction of options on the Fidelity Fund up to the number of expirations currently permissible under the Rules. Because the proposal is limited to one class, the Exchange believes any additional traffic that may be generated from the introduction of Fidelity Fund options will be manageable.
The Exchange believes that offering options on the Fidelity Fund will benefit investors by providing them with an additional, relatively lower cost investing tool to gain exposure to the price of Ethereum and hedging vehicle to meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum-related products and positions. The Exchange expects investors will transact in options on the Fidelity Fund in the unregulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) options market,
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors because offering options on the Fidelity Fund will provide investors with an opportunity to realize the benefits of utilizing options on the Fidelity Fund, including cost efficiencies and increased hedging strategies. The Exchange believes that offering Fidelity Fund options will benefit investors by providing them with a relatively lower-cost risk management tool, which will allow them to manage their positions and associated risk in their portfolios more easily in connection with exposure to the price of Ethereum and with Ethereum-related products and positions. Additionally, the Exchange's offering of Fidelity Fund options will provide investors with the ability to transact in such options in a listed market environment as opposed to in the unregulated OTC options market, which would increase market transparency and enhance the process of price discovery conducted on the Exchange through increased order flow to the benefit of all investors. The Exchange also notes that it already lists (or has the authority to list) options on other commodity-based Fund Shares,
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, because it is consistent with current Exchange Rules previously filed with the Commission. Options on the Fidelity Fund satisfy the initial listing standards and continued listing standards currently in the Exchange Rules applicable to options on all Fund Shares, including Fund Shares that hold other commodities already deemed appropriate for options trading on the Exchange. Additionally, as demonstrated above, the Fidelity Fund is characterized by a substantial number of shares that are widely held and actively traded. Fidelity Fund options will trade in the same manner as any other Fund Share options—the same Exchange Rules that currently govern the listing and trading of all Fund Share options, including permissible expirations, strike prices and minimum increments, and applicable margin requirements, will govern the listing and trading of options on the Fidelity Fund in the same manner.
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and promote just and equitable principles of trade, as they are designed to address potential manipulative schemes and adverse market impacts surrounding the use of options, such as disrupting the market in the security underlying the options. The proposed position and exercise limits in this are 25,000 contracts, which is currently the lowest limit applicable to any equity options (including ETF options) and the position and exercise limits that apply to comparable ETFs that hold Bitcoin.
Further, given that the issuer of the Fidelity Fund may create and redeem shares that represent an interest in Ethereum, the Exchange believes it is relevant to compare the size of a position limit to the market capitalization of the Ethereum market. As of December 23, 2024, the global supply of Ethereum was approximately 120,000,000 coins, and the price of one Ethereum coin was approximately $3,494.25,
The Exchange also believes the proposed position and exercise limits are appropriate given position limits for Ethereum futures. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (“CME”) imposes a position limit of 8,000 futures (for the initial spot month) on its Ethereum futures contract.
The Exchange notes, unlike options contracts, CME position limits are calculated on a net futures-equivalent basis by contract and include contracts that aggregate into one or more base contracts according to an aggregation ratio(s).
The Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits will have no material impact to the supply of Ethereum. For example, consider again the proposed position limit of 25,000 option contracts for the Fidelity Fund option. As noted above, a position limit of 25,000 same side contracts effectively restricts a market participant from holding positions that could result in the receipt of no more than 2,500,000 shares of the Fidelity Fund (if that market participant exercised all its options). As of December 23, 2024, the Fidelity Fund had 41,700,000 shares outstanding. This means that the approximate number of market participants that could hold the maximum of 25,000 same side positions in the Fidelity Fund that would equate to the number of shares outstanding of that Fund is 16.
This means if 16 market participants had 25,000 same side positions in Fidelity Fund options, each of them would have to simultaneously exercise all of those options to create a scenario that may put the underlying security under stress. The Exchange believes it is highly unlikely for such an event to occur; however, even if either such event did occur, the Exchange would not expect the Fidelity Fund to be under stress because such an event would merely induce the creation of more shares through the trust's creation and redemption process.
As of December 23, 2024, the global supply of Ethereum was approximately 120,000,000, and the price of one Ethereum coin was approximately $3,418.00,
The Exchange believes the available supply of Ethereum is not relevant to the determination of position and exercise limits for options overlying the Fidelity Fund.
The Exchange notes that a Registration Statement on Form S-1 was filed with the Commission for the Fidelity Fund, which described the supply of Ethereum and the potential limits to that supply.
Based on the above information demonstrating, among other things, that the Fidelity Fund is characterized by a substantial number of outstanding shares that are actively traded and widely held, the Exchange believes the proposed position and exercise limits are extremely conservative compared to those of ETF options with similar market characteristics. The proposed position and exercise limits reasonably and appropriately balance the liquidity provisioning in the market against the prevention of manipulation. The Exchange believes these proposed limits are effectively designed to prevent an individual customer or entity from establishing options positions that could be used to manipulate the market of the underlying as well as the Ethereum market.
The Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to support the new Fidelity Fund options. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that its existing surveillance and reporting safeguards are designed to deter and detect possible manipulative behavior which might arise from listing and trading Fund Share options, including Fidelity Fund options.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as options on the Fidelity Fund will be equally available to all market participants who wish to trade such options and will trade generally in the same manner as other options. The Exchange Rules that currently apply to the listing and trading of all Fund Share options on the Exchange, including, for example, Rules that govern listing criteria, expirations, exercise prices, minimum increments, margin requirements, customer accounts, and trading halt procedures will apply to the listing and trading of Fidelity Fund options on the Exchange in the same manner as they apply to other options on all other Fund Shares that are listed and traded on the Exchange. Also, and as stated above, the Commission has approved the trading of options on other commodity-based Fund Shares.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the extent that the advent of Fidelity Fund options trading on the Exchange may make the Exchange a more attractive marketplace to market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are free to elect to become market participants on the Exchange. Additionally, other options exchanges are free to amend their listing rules, as applicable, to permit them to list and trade options on the Fidelity Fund.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change may relieve any burden on, or otherwise promote, competition, as it is designed to increase competition for order flow on the Exchange in a manner that is beneficial to investors by providing them with a lower-cost option to hedge their investment portfolios. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues that offer similar products. Ultimately, the Exchange believes that offering Fidelity Fund options for trading on the Exchange will promote competition by providing investors with an additional, relatively low-cost means to hedge their portfolios and meet their investment needs in connection with Ethereum prices and Ethereum-related products and positions on a listed options exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 22, 2024, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 1.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4850-DR), dated November 27, 2024.
Issued on February 4, 2025.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, dated November 27, 2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to March 6, 2025. This notice is further amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.