Over the years, USDA has acknowledged and confronted its history of discrimination in the administration of federal farm loan and benefit programs through a series of lawsuits brought by minority and female farmers. Courts and Congress have examined claims of disparate treatment and unequal access to credit and services. These proceedings have resulted in landmark settlements, meaningful reforms, and the disbursement of substantial compensatory relief.

Litigation addressing discrimination by USDA-affiliated entities dates to the early 1970s. In Strain v. Philippot, 331 F. Supp. 836 (M.D. Ala. 1971) a federal court entered a consent decree to address claims of racially discriminatory employment and service delivery practices within the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service (ACES). The plaintiffs, all black citizens of Alabama, included an employee of ACES and other rural residents who were beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries of extension services in Alabama.

The court determined that racial discrimination had influenced the employment practices and service distribution of the defendants, necessitating a detailed and specific decree. This decree not only prohibited discriminatory practices but also established procedures to prevent future discrimination and address the effects of past inequities. The case set a precedent for judicial intervention in USDA-related civil rights matters and underscored USDA's willingness to engage in meaningful reforms to ensure equitable access and treatment for all.

In the mid-1990s, lawsuits such as Williams v. Glickman, 936 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996) raised serious allegations of racial bias in USDA loan programs. The plaintiffs in this case alleged racial and national origin discrimination by the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), a credit agency within USDA, in its administration of farm loans. They sought damages and equitable relief under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fifth Amendment and filed a motion for class certification, seeking to represent a broader group of individuals allegedly affected by discriminatory practices. However, after reviewing the arguments, evidence, and legal standards, the court denied the motion for class certification.

Although these early claims were dismissed for procedural reasons, they laid the foundation for the class-action case Pigford v. Glickman, 182 FRD. 341 (D.D.C. 1998) filed on behalf of black farmers who had been systematically excluded from USDA credit programs between 1981 and 1996. The Pigford settlement, approved by the court in 1999, provided over $1 billion in payments and debt relief. It also imposed institutional reforms within USDA, including strengthened civil rights oversight and improved loan processing procedures with a consent decree establishing a system for notice, claims submission, consideration, and review that involved a facilitator, arbitrator, adjudicator, and monitor, all with assigned responsibilities.

In 2004, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association (BFAA) filed a $20.5 billion class action lawsuit against the USDA for the same practices, alleging racially discriminatory practices between 1997 and 2004. The lawsuit was dismissed when the BFAA failed to show it had standing to bring the suit.

Recognizing that many eligible claimants were excluded from the original Pigford settlement due to missed deadlines, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the Pigford II settlement in 2010. This legislation appropriated an additional $1.25 billion to allow late filers to seek relief under a non-judicial claims process. These efforts underscored a bipartisan consensus that the legacy of discrimination required not only financial redress but also structural reform.

Similar allegations were addressed in Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 1:99-cv-03119 (D.D.C. filed Nov. 24, 1999) (settled), brought by Native American farmers who faced comparable disparities in USDA credit services. The 2010 settlement in that case provided up to $760 million in relief and further commitments to reform agency outreach and support for Native communities. Although other lawsuits, including Garcia v. Vilsack (filed by Hispanic farmers) and Love v. Vilsack (filed by female farmers), did not achieve class certification, they nonetheless spurred USDA to create additional administrative processes for reviewing and compensating individual claims. These responses collectively reflected a broad institutional effort to correct past practices and ensure equitable access moving forward.

These actions collectively demonstrate USDA's substantial and sustained efforts to identify, acknowledge, and correct historical discrimination in its programs. The Department has implemented billions of dollars in settlement compensation, restructured its civil rights offices, and improved transparency, access, and service delivery. Courts have consistently affirmed that targeted relief, rather than open-ended racial or sex-based preferences, are the appropriate remedy for past discrimination.

In Strickland v. USDA, white farmers challenged USDA disaster and pandemic relief programs that targeted socially disadvantaged groups. The plaintiffs argued that the use of race and sex as criteria violated the Equal Protection Clause. Emphasizing an emerging judicial scrutiny of remedial race-based classifications, particularly considering Supreme Court precedent clarifying constitutional limits on affirmative action, the Court preliminarily enjoined the relief programs that included race- and sex-based preferences. Strickland v. United States Dep't of Agric., 736 F. Supp. 3d 469 (N.D. Tex. 2024).

In alignment with the Strickland court's June 7, 2024, decision, USDA has concluded that the use of discretionary policy choices, made under the rubric of the statutory authorities for the programs identified in the table below, is inconsistent with constitutional principles and the administration's policy objectives.

Moving forward, USDA will no longer apply race- or sex-based criteria in its decision-making processes, ensuring that its programs are administered in a manner that upholds the principles of meritocracy, fairness, and equal opportunity for all participants.

This decision aligns with recent federal directives emphasizing the importance of equal protection under the law and merit-based opportunity. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14148, “Initial Recissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions,” which revoked prior executive orders that advanced racial equity and support for underserved communities through race- and sex-based preferences. The following day, Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” was issued, declaring that it is the policy of the United States to protect civil rights, promote individual initiative, and eliminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities. This order directed all executive departments and agencies to terminate mandates and programs that rely on criteria such as “diversity,” “equity,” “advancing equity,” or similar frameworks.

On February 5, 2025, Attorney General Bondi issued a memorandum titled “Eliminating Internal Discriminatory Practices,” which reinforced the commitment to ensuring equal protection under the law. The memorandum emphasized that eliminating racial discrimination requires eliminating all forms of it and directed federal agencies to evaluate their practices and policies to ensure alignment with the principles of equal dignity and respect.

Accordingly, with respect to the programs at issue in this rulemaking, USDA has transitioned to race- and sex-neutral frameworks to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and the equal protection of all farmers and ranchers under the law. This regulatory action reflects that transition. It affirms that USDA, going forward, lacks a compelling interest in redressing instances of historical discrimination because of the progress achieved through USDA's extensive settlement processes and structural reforms. Future programmatic relief will be administered without regard to race or sex, in accordance with the law and the principles of fairness.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2), the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring notice of proposed rulemaking and the opportunity for public participation are inapplicable to this final rule because this rule relates to “personnel or public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” In addition, the Strickland decision catalyzed the changes USDA is making in this rule to comport with the Constitution. Therefore, this final rule is being issued without notice and comment.

Analyzing the economic impact of this rule involves comparing the proposed change with an analytic baseline. Since the court ruling in Strickland v. USDA, USDA has not provided special consideration based on race or gender. Therefore, this rule results in no economic effect relative to a baseline in which current practice is extended into the future.

This rule has been determined to be significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and was submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review.

This final rule is not major under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ).

The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis (5 U.S.C. 603, 604) are not applicable to this final rule because USDA was not required to publish notice of proposed rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.

The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., includes minimizing the paperwork burden on affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing for public comment a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA and it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public is also not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB control number (44 U.S.C. 3512).

This rulemaking potentially affects existing information collections related to the grant and loan programs listed in the table included in the preamble. USDA will obtain OMB approval for any changes to these collections prior to their adoption.

While many provisions of this final rule reinforce each other, USDA intends for each provision to stand on its own merit and be severable. If any part of this final rule is declared invalid or stayed, USDA intends for the remaining provisions to remain valid and enforceable. USDA would separately adopt all of the provisions contained in this final rule.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the preamble, USDA amends 7 CFR parts 9, 400, 636, 760, 761, 762, 767, 1410, 1465, 1467, 1468, 4280, and 5001 as follows:

Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of the American Relief Act, 2025; Pub. L. 118-158; referred to as “the Act” in this document) provides “$30,780,000,000, to remain available until expended, for necessary expenses related to losses of revenue, quality or production of crops (including milk, on-farm stored commodities, crops prevented from planting, and harvested adulterated wine grapes), trees, bushes, and vines, as a consequence of droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze, including a polar vortex, smoke exposure, and excessive moisture occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024 under such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture . . .”. As provided in the Act, losses due to drought are only eligible if any area within the county in which the loss occurs was rated by the U.S. Drought Monitor  1 as having D2 (Severe Drought) for eight consecutive weeks or a D3 (Extreme Drought) or higher level of drought intensity during the applicable calendar years.

FSA is using the funding provided in the Act to assist producers through several programs. 2 SDRP will use approximately $16.09 billion of the authorized $30.78 billion in funding to assist producers who suffered losses of crops, trees, bushes, or vines due to qualifying disaster events. FSA will administer SDRP in two stages.

Stage 1 will use a streamlined process with pre-filled application forms for producers with indemnified crop, tree, and vine losses. 3 Data for these losses are already on file with FSA or the Risk Management Agency (RMA) as a result of the producer previously receiving a NAP payment or a crop insurance indemnity under certain crop insurance policies. This rule provides the eligibility requirements, application process, and payment calculations for SDRP Stage 1.

SDRP Stage 2 will provide payments to eligible producers for losses of crops, trees, bushes, and vines that were not indemnified. These losses, sometimes referred to as uncovered or shallow losses, include losses of crops, trees, bushes, and vines for which a producer did not have crop insurance or NAP coverage, as well as losses that were insured with crop insurance or covered by NAP but were not severe enough to trigger an indemnity. Like Stage 1, Stage 2 payments will be calculated based on individual crop, tree, bush, and vine losses, rather than a producer's cumulative revenue loss, which was used for the Emergency Relief Program (ERP) Phase 2 and ERP 2022 Track 2. Producers who apply for Stage 2 will provide the data required to calculate a payment through the application process. FSA anticipates announcing SDRP Stage 2 in a later rule.

To be eligible for SDRP Stage 1, a producer must be a:

• Citizen of the United States;

• Resident alien, which for purposes of SDRP means “lawful alien” as defined in 7 CFR part 1400;

• Partnership organized under State law consisting solely of citizens of the United States or resident aliens;

• Corporation, limited liability company, or other organizational structure organized under State law consisting solely of citizens of the United States or resident aliens; or

• Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).

This requirement aligns with the eligibility criteria for ERP Phase 1 and Phase 2.

To be considered a producer, as defined in this final rule at 7 CFR 760.2202, an applicant must share in the risk of producing the eligible crop and be entitled to a share in that crop available for marketing from the farm, or would have shared had the crop been produced. Members of legal entities who do not individually share in the risk of producing the crop and ownership of the crop are not considered producers and are not eligible to apply for SDRP; in those instances, the entity is considered the applicant.

To be eligible for SDRP, a producer must also be in compliance with the provisions of 7 CFR part 12, “Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation,” and the provisions of 7 CFR 718.6, which address ineligibility for benefits for offenses involving controlled substances.

FSA's creation and mailing of a pre-filled Stage 1 application does not indicate that a producer is eligible for SDRP. For example, some entities with members who are not U.S. citizens or resident aliens may have received crop insurance indemnities. The process of transferring data from RMA to FSA may result in creation of a pre-filled application for those entities; however, those entities are not eligible for a Stage 1 payment. Also, FSA's creation and mailing of a pre-filled application does not indicate that a crop and unit listed on the application suffered an eligible loss due to a qualifying disaster event. For example, a crop insurance indemnity may have been issued for a loss due to drought, but the county did not meet the criteria for qualifying drought as defined in 7 CFR 760.2202. The producer would not be eligible for payment for those losses under SDRP.

SDRP Stage 1 provides a streamlined application process for eligible crop, tree, and vine losses during the 2023, 2024, and 2025 crop years  4 due to qualifying disaster events in the 2023 and 2024 calendar years for which a producer:

• Received an indemnity under a Federal Crop Insurance policy that provided coverage for a loss of crop production, revenue, or quality, or a loss of trees or vines, excluding policies for forage seeding, policies for crops with an intended use of grazing, 5 livestock policies, Controlled Environment policies, 6 Margin Protection Plan policies, banana plants insured under the Hawaii Tropical Trees provisions, 7 supplemental policy endorsements based on county- or area-level losses when purchased with a base policy, 8 Cottonseed Endorsements; and policies issued in Puerto Rico;  9 or

• Received a NAP payment for a crop and unit, excluding payments for crops intended for grazing.

For insured losses, Stage 1 payments will be calculated based only on a producer's base crop insurance policy, without considering any supplemental policy endorsements that are based on area- or county-level loss, rather than on a producer's actual loss. 10 By including only a producer's base policy in calculating a Stage 1 payment, SDRP will provide assistance for insured losses on a producer's actual loss for the majority of insured producers, in alignment with Stage 1 payments for NAP-covered losses, which are always based on a producer's actual loss rather than on losses for an area or county. Payments based on area- or county-level insurance policies will only be included in Stage 1 when they are the producer's base policy, because excluding those policies would prevent FSA from using Stage 1's streamlined approach for those insured crop losses that would otherwise have been eligible. Basing Stage 1 payments on a producer's actual crop loss for the majority of producers is also consistent with the approach FSA will use for Stage 2, which will calculate payments based on a producer's actual crop, tree, bush, and vine losses. These changes bring consistency to the manner in which losses are compensated in both Stage 1 and Stage 2.

To be eligible for SDRP Stage 1, the crop, tree, or vine loss must have been caused, in whole or in part, by a qualifying disaster event that occurred in calendar year 2023 or 2024. When multiple causes of loss affect a crop, the amount of loss due to each specific cause of loss cannot be determined from the data on file with FSA and RMA; therefore, the Stage 1 payment will be based on a producer's total loss that was used to calculate the producer's crop insurance or NAP indemnity as long as at least a portion of that loss was caused by at least one qualifying disaster event.

Eligible crops for SDRP Stage 1 include aquacultural species for which Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage was available. 11 Losses to aquacultural species that were compensated under the Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-raised Fish Program (ELAP) are ineligible for SDRP Stage 1 to avoid providing duplicate benefits for losses already at least partially compensated for by ELAP. For example, if a producer received both a NAP payment and an ELAP payment for a loss of farm-raised fish for the 2024 crop year, the producer will be ineligible to receive an SDRP Stage 1 payment for that loss of farm-raised fish. ELAP payments for losses that were not covered by NAP (for example, losses due to the cost of transporting water or feed to livestock, and milk losses due to H5N1 infection) do not affect a producer's SDRP eligibility.

FSA is also excluding certain losses from SDRP Stage 1 eligibility when they were previously compensated under ERP 2022. Producers were eligible for ERP 2022 if their loss of an eligible crop was caused, in whole or in part, by a qualifying disaster event occurring in the 2022 calendar year. As a result, ERP 2022 Track 1 included some losses for the 2023 crop year, and ERP 2022 Track 2 allowed producers to use their allowable gross revenue for the 2023 tax year as their disaster year revenue. 12 For both Track 1 and Track 2, a producer was eligible for ERP 2022 if the loss was caused, at least in part, by a qualifying disaster event occurring in the 2022 calendar year; however, an eligible crop also may have suffered a loss due to 1 or more qualifying disaster events in 2023 calendar year. Therefore, to avoid compensating a producer twice for the same loss, SDRP Stage 1 excludes losses for which a producer received an ERP 2022 Track 1 payment for the 2023 crop year, or an ERP 2022 Track 2 payment based on their allowable gross revenue for the 2023 tax year.

FSA is also excluding crop, tree, bush, and vine losses in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Massachusetts from both Stage 1 and Stage 2 of SDRP to avoid compensating producers twice for the same loss. The Act authorized $220,000,000 to provide block grants to eligible States  13 to provide compensation to producers for necessary expenses related to crop, timber, and livestock losses, including on-farm infrastructure, as a consequence of any weather event in 2023 or 2024 that a State, in its sole discretion, determines warrants such relief. Under that authority, FSA is establishing block grants with Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Massachusetts covering crop, tree, bush, and vine losses in those states.

For losses of crops that were covered by NAP, if any portion of land in the unit was physically located in one of those 4 states, the entire unit will be ineligible for Stage 1 because FSA cannot determine the amount of loss for the portion of the unit not located in the ineligible State using the data previously submitted by the producer. For insured crops, units that are physically located in one of those 4 states will be ineligible for Stage 1, except in certain instances when the producer had a Rainfall Index plan for Apiculture policy or for Pasture, Rangeland, and Forage (PRF), or a Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP) policy.

Producers who have a WFRP policy are required to indicate the county in which the majority of their expected revenue would be earned on reports required for WFRP coverage, such as their Whole-Farm History Report, Inventory Report, and Farm Operation Report. The data on file with RMA does not indicate whether any land in a WFRP unit is located in any other counties. Therefore, to facilitate administration of SDRP Stage 1, WFRP units are ineligible for SDRP Stage 1 if the county where the majority of a producer's expected revenue would be earned is in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Massachusetts, even if part of that unit is physically located outside of those 4 states. Conversely, if the county in which the majority of a producer's expected revenue would be earned is not in one of those 4 states, that unit will be included for SDRP Stage 1, even if the unit includes land that is physically located in 1 of those 4 states. 14

Similar to WFRP, Rainfall Index plans for Apiculture and PRF may cover units with land located in more than 1 county, and data on file with RMA only includes the county entered by the producer on their insurance application. Losses under those policies will be ineligible for SDRP Stage 1 if the county entered on the insurance application is in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Massachusetts. Losses will be included in SDRP Stage 1 if the county is not located in 1 of those 4 states.

To avoid paying a producer twice for the same loss, the block grant programs administered by Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, and Massachusetts will exclude losses on land in units covered by Apiculture, PRF, and WFRP policies that were eligible for SDRP Stage 1. FSA intends to provide assistance in SDRP Stage 2 for losses on land physically located outside of those 4 states that is excluded from SDRP Stage 1 as described above for NAP units and under apiculture, PRF, and WFRP policies.

SDRP Stage 1 will include Rainfall Index plans for Annual Forage, PRF, and Apiculture, which provide indemnities based on an index that reflects how much precipitation is received relative to the long-term average for a specified area and timeframe. These programs do not directly compensate producers for drought; however, these programs are included in SDRP Stage 1 because the lack of rainfall may have resulted in drought conditions, and including these policies streamlines the delivery of assistance to producers who may have suffered eligible losses due to qualifying drought. In some cases, a producer may have also received a NAP payment for the crop. If a producer received both a NAP payment and an Annual Forage, PRF, or Apiculture indemnity for a crop, the data for both the NAP payment and the crop insurance indemnity will be used to pre-fill the application, resulting in two separate line items (one under Part C—Insured Crop Information, and one under Part D—NAP Crop Information). In those instances, the producer must elect whether to receive a Stage 1 payment based on the data associated with their Federal crop insurance indemnity or their NAP payment by completing the line item for their selection as described below under “How to Apply.” This policy is necessary to avoid compensating producers twice for the same loss under Stage 1.

FSA and RMA will identify the producers who received indemnities and NAP payments described above. For each of those producers, FSA will generate an FSA-526, Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) Stage 1 Application, with certain items pre-filled with information already on file with USDA, as listed below, and FSA will mail copies of the pre-filled applications to producers. The generation and mailing of a pre-filled application does not indicate that a producer is eligible for SDRP Stage 1. Producers may also electronically obtain pre-filled applications by contacting their FSA county office  15 beginning on July 10, 2025. Producers will submit separate applications for each crop year.

Producers may submit applications to their FSA county office in person or by mail, email, facsimile, or other methods announced by FSA. In order for an application to be processed for FSA County Committee action, a complete application must be submitted to the producer's recording county office by the close of business on the deadline announced by FSA.

Producers cannot alter the data in these pre-filled items; any alterations in the pre-filled data on the application will result in FSA disapproving the producer's Stage 1 application. FSA will not calculate Stage 1 payments using data manually submitted by producers. Stage 1 payments will only be calculated using data already on file with RMA and FSA. If a producer believes that any information that has been pre-filled on the FSA-526 is incorrect, the producer should contact their Federal crop insurance agent for insured crops or their FSA county office for NAP-covered crops. If the crop insurance agent or FSA determine that the producer's information on file is erroneous, they will correct the producer's data on file with RMA and FSA. Once the corrections have been made, an updated Stage 1 application may be generated for the producer.

For producers who received a Federal crop insurance indemnity for eligible policies, the pre-filled application will include the producer's physical State and county codes, unit numbers, crops, and crop years. For producers who received a NAP payment, the pre-filled applications will include the producer's administrative State and county codes, unit numbers, crop years, pay crops, and pay groups. FSA will also pre-fill the calculated Stage 1 payment amounts, prior to any payment reductions for reasons such as payment limitation and factoring of payments to stay within available funding.

FSA's generation of a pre-filled application and mailing of that application to the producer is not a confirmation that the producer is eligible to receive a Stage 1 payment. To complete the application, the producer must enter the type of qualifying disaster event that caused, in whole or in part, the crop, tree, or vine loss. Producers are responsible for reviewing the list of qualifying disaster events, and if a loss was due to drought, producers must also ensure that the county where the crop and unit were located meets the definition of “qualifying drought.”  16

Producers who received Federal crop insurance indemnities under WFRP policies, including Micro Farm policies, must also certify the percentage of their expected revenue from specialty and high value crops for the purpose of administration of the payment limitations described below. In addition to this certification, they must also provide documentation to support their certification by the application deadline. If a producer does not provide supporting documentation, FSA will process the producer's application with 0 percent of their revenue attributed to specialty and high value crops, resulting in the producer's payment for loss being attributed to the lower payment limitation that applies to other crops, described below, rather than the higher payment limitation that applies to specialty and high value crops.

All producers must certify on FSA-526 that they will meet the requirement to purchase Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage for the next 2 available crop years, as described later in this document. If multiple crops and units are listed on an application, and the producer only agrees to purchase Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage for only some of the crops and units, a Stage 1 payment will be issued only for those crops and units for which the producer agrees to purchase Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage for the next 2 available crop years.

For producers who had Federal crop insurance, the application will list the primary policy holder and all producers with a substantial beneficial interest (SBI) who have a record established with FSA. Inclusion of an SBI on the application does not mean that the SBI is considered an eligible producer; to be considered an eligible producer, an SBI must individually share in the risk of producing the crop and ownership of the crop. If one or more producers with an SBI had a share in a crop, the primary policy holder must update the application to show the share in the crop for each of those producers in addition to the primary policy holder. If the producer(s) are determined to be eligible for a Stage 1 payment, payments will be issued to the primary policy holder and to any eligible producers with an SBI based on their ownership share of the crop. To receive a payment, each person or entity listed as having a share of the Stage 1 payment for a crop and unit must sign the application and agree to purchase Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage for that crop and unit in each of the next 2 available crop years.

To receive an SDRP payment, producers, including any producers with an SBI who have a risk and share in a crop as indicated on a Stage 1 application, must also have the following forms on file with FSA by the deadline announced by FSA:

• CCC-902, Farm Operating Plan, for an individual or legal entity;

• CCC-901, Member Information for Legal Entities, if applicable; and

• AD-1026, Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC) and Wetland Conservation (WC) Certification, for the producer and applicable affiliates as provided in 7 CFR part 12.

Most producers will already have these forms on file with FSA due to participation in other FSA programs.

In addition to the forms listed above, producers and members of legal entities who are requesting the increased payment limitations described below may submit FSA-510, Request for an Exception to the $125,000 Payment Limitation for Certain Programs, including the certification from a certified public accountant or attorney that the person or legal entity has met the requirements to be eligible for the increased payment limitation. FSA will continue to accept FSA-510 until the deadline announced by FSA. If FSA-510 and the accompanying certification is filed after the SDRP Stage 1 payment is issued but before the deadline to submit FSA-510, FSA will process the FSA-510 and issue any resulting additional payment amount.

FSA and RMA will calculate Stage 1 payments using the loss data on file with FSA or RMA at the time of payment calculation or as later updated by FSA or RMA upon identification and correction of an error in the data on file at time of payment calculation.

The Stage 1 payment calculation for a crop and unit will depend on the type and level of Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage obtained by the producer. Crops covered under a WFRP policy or included in a whole-farm unit will be treated as a single crop for payment calculation purposes. Each payment calculation will use an SDRP factor based on the level of Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage the producer had obtained for the crop and unit, as specified in the following table. These factors are consistent with the factors used previously for ERP Phase 1 and ERP 2022 Track 1.

When determining the SDRP factors, analysis was conducted to ensure that payments do not exceed available funding and, in aggregate across all eligible Stage 1 producers, do not exceed 90 percent of losses, as required by the Act. The difference between the SDRP factors for Federal crop insurance and NAP is due to differences in the available coverage levels under Federal crop insurance and NAP. Federal crop insurance is available at the catastrophic coverage level (50 percent production coverage for 55 percent of the price) and buy-up coverage levels (50 percent to 85 percent production coverage for 100 percent of the price). The coverage level for NAP is limited by statute to a maximum of 65 percent. 17 For both NAP and Federal crop insurance, the SDRP factors for the catastrophic and maximum buy-up levels are 75 percent and 95 percent, respectively, with the factors stair-stepping for the buy-up options as shown in the table above. The Act provides that payments to eligible producers who did not have Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage cannot exceed 70 percent of their loss; these producers' eligible losses will be addressed by Stage 2. The lowest SDRP factor for Stage 1 producers is set at 75 percent. Payment limits and other reductions may decrease Stage 1 payments, further lowering the percent of losses covered.

To calculate a Stage 1 payment for an eligible insured crop, tree, or vine loss, RMA will perform a calculation consistent with the calculation of an indemnity for the crop and unit. The calculation will use the approved RMA loss procedures for the type of coverage purchased by the producer, but it will substitute the applicable SDRP factor for the policy's coverage level. Using that SDRP factor, RMA will determine the amount that will be used in place of the liability  18 for SDRP purposes. The result of that calculation will then be adjusted by subtracting the net crop insurance indemnity, which is equal to the producer's gross crop insurance indemnity for the crop and unit, minus administrative fees and premiums. This step eliminates any overlap between the producer's crop insurance payment and the assistance provided through SDRP Stage 1.

The specific calculation will vary depending on the type of crop insurance, but the following example illustrates the general approach used to determine a Stage 1 payment for an insured producer. Suppose a producer had a crop insurance policy with a coverage level of 65 percent, and the total administrative fee and premium was $3,500. Based on the producer's approved yield, acres, and applicable price under their insurance policy, the expected value of their crop was $500,000, and the liability was $325,000 (65 percent of the expected value). The producer suffered a crop loss and their production was valued at $250,000, resulting in a gross indemnity of $75,000. To calculate the producer's Stage 1 payment, RMA will perform the same calculation that was used to calculate the indemnity based on their loss procedures but using $437,500 (the SDRP factor of 87.5 percent multiplied by the expected value) in place of the liability, such that the value of production ($250,000) is subtracted from $437,500 equaling $187,500. From that amount, RMA will subtract the net indemnity of $71,500 ($75,000 minus $3,500), resulting in a calculated Stage 1 payment of $116,000 prior to application of the final payment factor described below and any other applicable reductions such as the payment limitation reduction.

For consistency throughout Stage 1, payments for NAP-covered losses will use the same approach as for insured losses. To calculate a Stage 1 payment for a NAP-covered crop loss, FSA will perform a calculation consistent with the NAP payment calculation for the crop and unit as provided in 7 CFR part 1437. FSA will substitute the applicable SDRP factor for the coverage level to determine the applicable guarantee for SDRP purposes. This calculated amount will then be adjusted by subtracting the net NAP payment, which is equal to the producer's gross NAP payment for the crop and unit minus service fees and premiums.

For both insured and NAP-covered crops, the calculated amounts will be multiplied by a final payment factor of 35 percent to ensure that total payments do not exceed the available funding. FSA will issue Stage 1 payments as applications are processed and approved. All SDRP payments are subject to the availability of funding. If additional funding is available after all eligible SDRP applications have been processed and payments have been issued, FSA may issue additional Stage 1 payments, not to exceed the maximum amount allowed by law.

Two payment limitations apply to SDRP—one payment limitation for specialty and high value crops combined, and a second payment limitation for other crops that are not included in the definitions of “specialty crop” or “high value crop.” As under ERP Phase 1 and ERP 2022, specialty crops include fruits, tree nuts, vegetables, culinary herbs and spices, medicinal plants, and nursery, floriculture, and horticulture crops. This includes common specialty crops identified by USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. 19 For SDRP, high value crops include trees, bushes, vines, aquaculture, hemp, grass for seed, tobacco, and vegetable seed. 20 The category of “other crops” includes all other crops that are not included in the definitions of specialty crop or high value crop.

As required by the Act, SDRP is subject to payment limitations consistent with:

• 7 CFR 760.1507(a)(2), as in effect on January 1, 2019, for specialty and high value crops; and

• 7 CFR 760.1507, as in effect on December 21, 2024, for other crops.

Separate payment limitations apply for each program year. Payments under both Stage 1 and Stage 2 will be combined for the purpose of applying payment limitations. Therefore, producers who receive the maximum payment amount for a crop year under Stage 1, based on their applicable payment limitation, will not be eligible to receive additional payment for losses under Stage 2 for the same crop year.

The payment limitations are determined by the person's or legal entity's average adjusted gross farm income. Specifically, a person or legal entity, other than a joint venture or general partnership, cannot receive, directly or indirectly, more than $125,000 for specialty and high value crops combined and $125,000 for other crops if their average adjusted gross farm income is less than 75 percent of their average adjusted gross income (AGI) for the applicable base period. If at least 75 percent of the person or legal entity's average AGI is average adjusted gross farm income and the participant provides the required certification and documentation, as discussed below, the person or legal entity, other than a joint venture or general partnership, is eligible to receive, directly or indirectly, up to $900,000 for specialty and high value crops combined and up to $250,000 for other crops for each program year.

Average adjusted gross farm income includes income derived from farming, ranching, and forestry operations, which has the same meaning as in other recent FSA programs such as ERP, ERP 2022, Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP), ELRP 2022, and ELRP 2023 and 2024. If the average adjusted gross farm income derived from the items listed in the definition of “income derived from farming, ranching, and forestry operations” (7 CFR 760.2202) is at least 66.66 percent of the average adjusted gross income of the person or legal entity, then the average adjusted gross farm income may also take into consideration income or benefits derived from the sale, trade, or other disposition of equipment to conduct farm, ranch, or forestry operations, and the provision of production inputs and production services to farmers, ranchers, foresters, and farm operations. Inclusion of those items and benefits in this manner was first introduced by section 1604 of the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-234), which amended section 1001D of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171). This provision has been applied in other recent FSA and Commodity Credit Corporation programs that use a producer's average adjusted gross farm income for payment eligibility or payment limitation purposes.

As provided in 7 CFR 1400.105, a payment made to a legal entity will be attributed to those members who have a direct or indirect ownership interest in the legal entity unless the payment to the legal entity has been reduced by the proportionate ownership interest of the member due to that member's ineligibility. As in other FSA programs, attribution of payments made to legal entities will be tracked through four levels of ownership as follows:

• First level of ownership—any payment made to a legal entity that is owned in whole or in part by a person will be attributed to the person in an amount that represents the direct ownership interest in the first level or payment legal entity;  21

• Second level of ownership—any payment made to a first-level legal entity that is owned in whole or in part by another legal entity (referred to as a second-level legal entity) will be attributed to the second-level legal entity in proportion to the ownership of the second-level legal entity in the first-level legal entity; if the second-level legal entity is owned in whole or in part by a person, the amount of the payment made to the first-level legal entity will be attributed to the person in the amount that represents the indirect ownership in the first-level legal entity by the person;

• Third and fourth levels of ownership—except as provided in the second level of ownership bullet above and in the fourth level of ownership bullet below, any payments made to a legal entity at the third and fourth levels of ownership will be attributed in the same manner as specified in the second level of ownership bullet above; and

• Fourth level of ownership—if the fourth level of ownership is that of a legal entity and not that of a person, a reduction in payment will be applied to the first-level or payment legal entity in the amount that represents the indirect ownership in the first level or payment legal entity by the fourth-level legal entity.

If an individual or legal entity is not eligible to receive an SDRP payment due to the individual or legal entity failing to satisfy payment eligibility provisions, the payment made either directly or indirectly to the individual or legal entity will be reduced to zero. The amount of the reduction for the direct payment to the producer will be commensurate with the direct or indirect ownership interest of the ineligible individual or ineligible legal entity.

Like other programs administered by FSA, payments made to an Indian Tribe or Tribal organization, as defined in section 4(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304), will not be subject to payment limitation.

Payments made directly or indirectly to a person who is a minor child will not be combined with the earnings of the minor's parent or legal guardian.

The Act requires all producers who receive SDRP payments to purchase Federal crop insurance, or NAP coverage where Federal crop insurance is not available, for the next 2 available crop years, as determined by the Secretary. Participants must obtain Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage, as may be applicable, at a coverage level equal to or greater than 60 percent. This requirement establishes a consistent base level of coverage for both insured and noninsured crops, and the coverage level is consistent with the required coverage level for insured crops under ERP and ERP 2022 and for all crops under the previous 2017 Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program and the Wildfires and Hurricanes Indemnity Program Plus. 22 Participants must also file an acreage report and any other required reports or documentation needed to establish crop insurance or NAP coverage for the applicable crop years.

Availability will be determined from the date a producer receives an SDRP payment and may vary depending on the timing and availability of Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage for a producer's particular crops.

In situations where Federal crop insurance is unavailable for a crop, a participant must obtain NAP coverage. Section 1001D of the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Farm Bill; Pub. L. 99-198) provides that a person or entity with an average AGI greater than $900,000 is not eligible to participate in NAP; however, producers with an average AGI greater than $900,000 are eligible to participate in SDRP. To reconcile this restriction in the 1985 Farm Bill and the requirement to obtain NAP or Federal crop insurance coverage, SDRP participants may meet the purchase requirement by purchasing WFRP coverage, if eligible, or they may apply for NAP coverage and pay the applicable service fee and premium despite their ineligibility for a NAP payment.

Producers who receive a Stage 1 payment that was calculated based on an indemnity under a PRF policy; Annual Forage policy; or WFRP policy must purchase the same type of policy or a combination of individual policies for the crops that had covered losses under SDRP to meet the Federal crop insurance and NAP coverage requirement.

If both Federal crop insurance and NAP coverage are unavailable for a crop, the producer must obtain WFRP Federal crop insurance coverage, if eligible.

For Stage 1, the Federal crop insurance and NAP coverage requirements are specific to the crop and county (which is the county where the crop is physically located for insured crops and the administrative county for NAP-covered crops) for which Stage 1 payments are paid.

Producers who were paid under Stage 1 for a crop in a county, but do not plant that crop in that county in a year for which the Federal crop insurance and NAP coverage requirement applies, are not subject to the Federal crop insurance or NAP purchase requirement for that year.

Producers who receive a Stage 1 payment on a crop in a county and who have the crop or crop acreage in subsequent years, as provided in this document, and who fail to obtain the 2 years of Federal crop insurance or NAP coverage required as specified in this document must refund all Stage 1 payments for that crop in that county, with interest, from the date of disbursement.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). This rule governs disaster assistance payments to agricultural producers and therefore falls within the benefits exemption.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) because it involves matters relating to benefits. The requirements for the regulatory flexibility analysis in 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 are specifically tied to the requirement for a proposed rule by section 553 or any other law; in addition, the definition of rule in 5 U.S.C. 601 is tied to the publication of a proposed rule.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which would ordinarily necessitate delaying its effective date for 60 days (5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A)). However, the CRA, at 5 U.S.C. 808(2), allows an agency to make such regulations effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. USDA has determined that such good cause exists here. The beneficiaries of this rule have been impacted by disaster events in calendar years 2023 and 2024, and this assistance is necessary to support the continued operation of crop producers who have suffered severe losses that impact their ability to sustain their operations and continue farming. To mitigate further adverse impacts on affected producers for losses due to these disaster events, USDA finds that notice and public procedure are contrary to the public interest. Therefore, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” announced the Administration policy to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. In line with the Executive Order requirements, the Agency chose this regulatory approach, including leveraging data previously filed with USDA and the use of pre-filled applications, to maximize benefits and minimize burden on American producers. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant or economically significant.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as economically significant under Executive Order 12866 and therefore, OMB has reviewed this rule. The costs and benefits of this rule are summarized below. The full CBA is available on regulations.gov.

FSA is using $16.09 billion of the $30.78 billion authorized by the Act to implement SDRP. SDRP provides relief to qualifying producers who: had previously received certain Federal crop insurance indemnities or FSA NAP payments for the 2023, 2024, and 2025  23 crop years due to qualifying disaster events in the 2023 and 2024 calendar years; did not participate in either RMA or NAP programs but suffered eligible losses; or had shallow losses, which are losses that are too small to trigger an RMA or NAP payment. To avoid paying for the same loss as already covered under federal crop insurance or NAP, FSA will add the RMA or NAP net indemnities to the value of crop production after disaster damage (or equivalently, subtract the net indemnity from the expected crop value times the SDRP factor) when calculating the SDRP 1 payment. Factoring in the RMA or NAP net indemnities effectively means that affected producers that had a qualifying loss will receive a 100 percent reimbursement of RMA premiums and NAP fees. SDRP Stage 1 leverages data on file with FSA or RMA for those producers who received a NAP payment or certain RMA indemnities. SDRP Stage 2 covers eligible producers who suffered an eligible loss but did not participate in certain RMA programs or NAP and those with shallow losses too small to trigger an RMA or NAP payment. SDRP Stage 1, the focus of the cost-benefit analysis for this rule, accounts for 72 percent of total estimated gross payments, with Stage 2 accounting for 28 percent. Payments associated with prior RMA and NAP losses account for 91 percent of total estimated SDRP gross payments.

The environmental impacts have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the FSA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 799).

SDRP is authorized by Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025. The intent of SDRP is to provide payments to eligible producers who suffered eligible crop, tree, and vine losses due to wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze (including a polar vortex), smoke exposure, excessive moisture, and qualifying drought, and related conditions occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024. The limited discretionary aspects of the program were designed to be consistent with established FSA disaster programs. As such, the Categorical Exclusions in 7 CFR 799.31 apply, specifically 7 CFR 799.31(b)(6)(iv) and (vi) (that is, § 799.31(b)(6)(iv) Individual farm participation in FSA programs where no ground disturbance or change in land use occurred as a result of the action or participation; and § 799.31(b)(6)(vi) Safety net programs administered by FSA).

No Extraordinary Circumstances (7 CFR 799.33) exist because this is an administrative payment program that does not have the potential to impact the human environment individually or collectively. As such, FSA has determined that the implementation of SDRP and participation in SDRP do not constitute major Federal actions that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment, individually or cumulatively. Therefore, FSA will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this regulatory action, and this notice serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision for this federal action.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a Government-to-Government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

USDA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that required Tribal consultation at this time. If a Tribe requests consultation, FSA will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chap. 35; see 5 CFR part 1320), requires that OMB approve all collections of information by a Federal agency from the public before they can be implemented. Respondents are not required to respond to any collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The information collection request has been approved by OMB under the control number of 0503-0028; Expiration Date: 10/31/2027. FSA will use data already on file with FSA or RMA to generate pre-filled applications for producers using the following forms: CCC-901, CCC-902E, CCC-902I, and FSA-510. In addition, for the information collection under 0503-0028, the agency is seeking to use FSA-526 and a letter to producers with this data collection. The FSA-526 and letter to producers are the only new data collection activities associated with this request; the pre-filled applications are generated with data previously collected and already on file, with no additional burden to producers. The total annual burden hours for this information collection is 123,201. See tables below for the breakout. This final rule is a one-time announcement of SDRP Stage 1 federal financial assistance funding.

Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Kathy Sayers, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, via email to Kathy.Sayers@usda.gov.

Title: Supplemental Disaster Assistance Program (SDRP) Stage 1.

Form Numbers: CCC-901, CCC-902E, CCC-902I, FSA-510, and FSA-526.

OMB Number: 0503-0028.

Expiration Date: 10/31/2027.

Type of Request: Generic Information Collection.

Abstract: As authorized by Title I of the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division B of the American Relief Act, 2025; Pub. L. 118-158), FSA is administering SDRP Stage 1 to assist producers who suffered eligible losses of crops, trees, and vines due to wildfires, hurricanes, floods, derechos, excessive heat, tornadoes, winter storms, freeze (including a polar vortex), smoke exposure, excessive moisture, qualifying drought, and related conditions occurring in calendar years 2023 and 2024.

Stage 1 will use a streamlined process with pre-filled application forms for producers with indemnified or NAP-covered crop, tree, and vine losses. Data for these losses are already on file with FSA or RMA as a result of the producer previously receiving a NAP payment or a crop insurance indemnity under certain crop insurance policies. Producers will complete a pre-filled application form for each program year for which they are applying.

Affected Public: Business for profit and farms (Agricultural producers).

Estimated Number of Respondents: 284,200.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 2.565.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 729,257.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.19075 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 139,110 burden hours.

The FSA-526 may be filled out at a minimum once, at a maximum for 3 crop years, involved in this data collection.

Affected Public: Business for profit and farms (Agricultural producers).

Estimated Number Respondents: 284,200.

Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.32.

Estimated Total Annual Responses: 375,144.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.118181 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 44,335 burden hours.

The grand total is 284,200 respondents, 1,104,401 total annual responses, and 183,445 burden hours.

FSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

The title and number of the Federal assistance programs, as found in the Assistance Listing, to which this document applies is 10.988—Supplemental Disaster Relief Program.

For the reasons discussed above, this final rule amends 7 CFR part 760 as follows:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1119; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00914-G” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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 regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan McCully, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0112-E, dated May 14, 2025 (referred to as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all DG Aviation GmbH Model DG-1000T powered sailplanes (gliders).

The MCAI states two occurrences were reported of propeller separation from DG Aviation GmbH Model DG-1000T gliders. In both reports, the rubber of the damper element sheared off completely. The investigation to determine the root cause is ongoing. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to separation of the propeller, which could result in reduced or loss of control of the glider or the propeller impacting the glider, passengers in the glider, or people on the ground.

The MCAI prohibits use of the glider's powerplant and requires revising the glider flight manual and installing “Motor INOP” placards. The MCAI also provides removal of the powerplant as an acceptable alternative method of compliance.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1119.

The FAA reviewed DG aviation GmbH Service Information No. 116-25, Issue 01.b, dated May 12, 2025. This material specifies procedures for revising the DG Aviation GmbH Model DG-1000T glider flight manual, emptying the fuel tank, and installing “Motor INOP” placards. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the material already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Referenced Material.”

The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing glider flight manual and must enter compliance with the applicable paragraph of this AD into the glider maintenance records in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The pilot may perform this action because it only involves revising the flight manual. This action could be performed equally well by a pilot or a mechanic. This is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.

The service information specifies compliance before the next engine use, but this AD requires compliance within 3 days after the effective date of this AD.

Although the service information specifies emptying the fuel tank, this AD does not require this action because this action is not required to address the unsafe condition identified in this AD.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon the finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the propeller separating from the glider could damage the aircraft structure and result in reduced control of the glider. Additionally, the corrective actions to prohibit operating the glider using the powerplant must be accomplished within 3 days after the effective date of this AD. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 2 gliders of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1352; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00812-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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 regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Udara Dharmasena, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5295; email: Udara.C.Dharmasena@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0129, dated June 5, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0129) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states that an occurrence was reported of loss of control of an outboard aileron surface. Subsequent investigations determined that the electronic card of the FCRM of that aileron had been contaminated by hydraulic fluid. In addition, EASA determined that certain servocontrols were exposed to hydraulic contamination before delivery of the airplane to its first operator. Due to the similarity of design, elevator and rudder FCRMs could be subject to the same failure mode. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to runaway of rudder or elevator surface, resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1352.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0129, which specifies procedures for replacing affected FCRMs, which have been exposed to hydraulic fuel contamination, with serviceable FCRMs and repairing any related hydraulic leaks on the airplane. EASA AD 2025-0129 prohibits “swapping” elevator or rudder FCRMs with spoiler or aileron FCRMs. EASA AD 2025-0129 also prohibits installing an FCRM unless it is a serviceable FCRM.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0129 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this 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, EASA AD 2025-0129 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0129 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0129 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 2025-0129. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0129 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1352 after this AD is published.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because FCRM electronic cards exposed to hydraulic fluid have led to loss of control of an outboard aileron surface and elevator FCRM electronic cards exposed to hydraulic fluid are also subject failure, due to their similarity of design. Control of the airplane is significantly degraded through the loss of control of an elevator or rudder surface, resulting in loss of control of the airplane. Additionally, some of the corrective actions in this AD must be accomplished before further flight, while the remaining actions must be done within 18 or 24 days, depending on the type of FCRM. The compliance times are shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition repairs of any related hydraulic leaks on the airplane. The FAA has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need this on-condition action:

According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected operators. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS-365N2, AS 365 N3, EC 155B, EC155B1, SA-365N, and SA-365N1 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 15, 2025 (90 FR 15667). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0110, dated June 6, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0110) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states two occurrences were reported of loss of tightening torque between the upper ball bearing end and the MR servo-control, which in one occurrence, led to the disconnection of these two parts. The MCAI further states that the investigation is still on-going to determine the root cause. EASA considers this MCAI an interim action and further action may follow.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the tightening torque and, depending on the results, taking corrective action. Additionally, in the NPRM the FAA proposed to require reporting certain information.

The FAA is issuing this AD to detect loss of tightening torque. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in disconnection between the upper ball bearing end and the MR servo-control, and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0617.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

EASA AD 2024-0110 requires a one-time check of the torque on each nut connecting the upper ball bearing end to all three MR servo-controls and, depending on the results, taking corrective actions, which include applying torque, lockwire, and sealing compound to the upper ball bearing end of the MR servo-control, inspecting the ball bearing end of the MR-servo control, replacing a ball bearing end, inspecting the upper end fitting of the MR-servo control, and replacing the MR servo-control. EASA AD 2024-0110 also requires reporting the inspection results (including no findings) to AH [Airbus Helicopters].

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

The MCAI, as well as the material referenced in the MCAI, refer to the “torque inspection” as a “check.” In an FAA AD, a “check” may be done by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate provided certain criteria are met. The authorization for a “check” in an FAA AD is an exception to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations and the criteria is not met in this AD. Accordingly, this AD requires those actions be accomplished by persons authorized under 14 CFR 43.3.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 63 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the tightening torque of the upper ball bearing end of each MR servo control will take 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $255 per helicopter (three MR servo-controls per helicopter) and $16,065 for the U.S. fleet.

Reporting the results of the inspection will take 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $5,355 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, applying torque, lock-wire, and sealing compound to the upper ball bearing end of each MR servo-control will take .5 work-hour and parts will cost a nominal amount for an estimated cost of $127.50 per helicopter (for up to three MR servo-controls per helicopter).

If required, inspecting the threads of a ball bearing end will take 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per ball bearing end. Depending on the results, replacing a ball bearing end will take 1 work-hour and parts will cost $1,299 for an estimated cost of $1,384 per ball bearing end.

If required, inspecting the threads of an upper end fitting will take 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per upper-end fitting. Depending on the results, replacing an MR servo-control will take 1 work-hour and parts will cost $41,039 for an estimated cost of $41,124 per MR servo-control.

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to take approximately 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Information Collection Clearance Officer, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177-1524.

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-25-14, Amendment 39-21858 (86 FR 72171, December 21, 2021) (AD 2021-25-14). AD 2021-25-14 applied 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. AD 2021-25-14 required repetitive inspections for cracking at the wing manhole access panel attachment holes at certain wing skin panels and corrective action if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2021-25-14 to address this unsafe condition, which could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the wings.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2024 (89 FR 55123). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0027, dated January 25, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0027), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2024-0027 states new investigation results highlighted that inspections must be applied to all models of A319, A320, and A321 airplanes in an affected configuration, and the associated compliance time must be adapted to these configurations. It was determined that fatigue cracking may occur in affected areas on airplanes having Sharklets installed during production or in service.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the actions of AD 2021-25-14 and to revise the applicability by adding new engine option (NEO) airplane models and removing Airbus SAS Model A321-111, -112, and -131 airplanes. The FAA also proposed to update the compliance times as specified in EASA AD 2024-0027.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-25-14. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2025 (90 FR 9523). The SNPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0230, dated December 2, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0230) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), which superseded EASA AD 2024-0027. Since EASA AD 2024-0027 was issued, Airbus published certain SRM tasks for repair as a result of the repetitive inspections at revision dated May 2024 to remove inadequate instructions for bush installation at steps 2 to 9 dated February 2024 or earlier. Accordingly, EASA AD 2024-0230 prohibits the use of SRM tasks 57-21-11-300-010, 57-21-11-300-021, and 57-21-11-300-025 that were deactivated at revision dated August 2023 for accomplishing repairs.

In the SNPRM, the FAA revised the proposals in the NPRM by adding a prohibition against accomplishing a repair using certain SRM tasks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1702.

The FAA received a comment from United Airlines, who supported the SNPRM without change.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0230, which specifies procedures for repetitive detailed inspections 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 ( i.e., repair). EASA AD 2024-0230 also prohibits accomplishing a repair using certain SRM tasks. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,650 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The extent of damage found during the required inspection could vary significantly from airplane to airplane. The FAA has no way of determining how much damage may be found on each airplane, the cost to repair the damage on each airplane, or the number of airplanes that may require repair.

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments using a method listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2025-1356; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-00834-T” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those comments.

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 regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this final rule.

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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Anthony Decaro, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562-627-5374; email: Anthony.D.Decaro@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0105, dated May 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0105) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The MCAI states that, during a design review, a potential thrust asymmetry condition was identified during derated takeoff operations when one engine is operating within a restricted N1 zone due to keep out zone (KOZ) limitations. Investigation revealed that the root cause lies in the interaction between derated logic and KOZ-limited engine control laws, which may result in significant thrust differences between engines. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to increased flightcrew workload during critical phases of flight, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1356.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0105. This material specifies revising the limitations section of the existing AFM to provide the flightcrew with procedures for derated takeoff limitations.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2025-0105 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD.

EASA AD 2025-0105 requires operators to “inform all flight crews” of revisions to the AFM, and thereafter to “operate the aeroplane accordingly.” However, this AD does not specifically require those actions as those actions are already required by FAA regulations. FAA regulations require that operators furnish to pilots any changes to the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 121.137) and ensure the pilots are familiar with the AFM (for example, 14 CFR 91.505). As with any other flightcrew training requirement, training on the updated AFM content is tracked by the operators and recorded in each pilot's training record, which is available for the FAA to review. FAA regulations also require pilots to follow the procedures in the AFM including all updates. Section 91.9 requires that any person operating a civil aircraft must comply with the operating limitations specified in the AFM. Therefore, including a requirement in this AD to operate the airplane according to the revised AFM would be redundant and unnecessary.

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, EASA AD 2025-0105 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0105 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2025-0105 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 2025-0105. Material required by EASA AD 2025-0105 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1356 after this AD is published.

Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency, for “good cause,” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days, upon a finding of good cause.

An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies forgoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because the interaction between derated takeoff logic and KOZ-limited engine control laws can cause significant thrust differences between engines (asymmetric thrust). During critical phases of flight this can lead to increased flightcrew workload and loss of control of the airplane. Additionally, the compliance time in this AD is shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for publication of the final rule. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

The requirements of the RFA do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

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

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

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 7X airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2025 (90 FR 14924). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0224, dated November 26, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0224) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states hydraulic leakage from the SPPCU led to investigations that determined that following certain failures, the SPECU can deliver an untimely and permanent activation command to the SPPCU standby electrical pump, which can result in overheating and significant hydraulic leakage of the unit. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to further occurrences of equipment overheating and hydraulic leakage in the fuel equipment bay, which, during ground operations, could cause uncontrolled fire in that area.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing the affected SPECUs and to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0484.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

The FAA added paragraph (h)(3) of this AD regarding the definition of a serviceable part. While the MCAI requires a serviceable part to be eligible for installation in accordance with Dassault instructions, this AD only requires that it be eligible for installation.

The FAA also added paragraph (i) of this AD to clarify that although the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0224 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. 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.

EASA AD 2024-0224 specifies procedures for replacement of affected SPECUs, including an inspection of the SPPCU for overheating and hydraulic leak marks and repair. EASA AD 2024-0224 also prohibits the installation of affected parts. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 160 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this 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 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.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0271 in the Federal Register (90 FR 14349; April 1, 2025), proposing to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sunbury Community Hospital Heliport, Sunbury, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by removing the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the WUVPU Waypoint serving Sunbury Community Hospital Heliport, Sunbury, PA. This Heliport was reported as abandoned in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD) No. 241, December 16, 2024. Controlled airspace is no longer necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations in the area.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means the EPA.

The background for this action is discussed in detail in our May 8, 2025, proposal (90 FR 19437) and accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD). In that document, we proposed to approve the April 2, 2025, SIP revision submitted by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) for the 2010 1-hour SO 2 primary NAAQS for the Evangeline Parish nonattainment area. As part of this action, EPA also proposed to approve the Administrative Order on Consent between LDEQ and Cabot as a source-specific revision and to incorporate it by reference into the SIP to provide the enforceable control strategy for the Evangeline Parish area.

The SO 2 nonattainment plan includes Louisiana's attainment demonstration (AD) for the Evangeline Parish SO 2 nonattainment area. LDEQ modeled air quality based on the Cabot facility's updated emission limits; through that modeling, LDEQ provided sufficient information that the revised limits at the Cabot facility would allow the area to meet the standard. Therefore, EPA concludes that the modeling in LDEQ's plan adequately demonstrates that the control requirements that apply to relevant sources in the area, including the one-hour SO 2 emission limits for the Cabot facility, provide for attainment in the area. This nonattainment plan also addresses requirements for emission inventories, RACT/RACM, RFP, and contingency measures. Louisiana has previously addressed requirements regarding nonattainment area New Source Review (NSR). EPA has determined that Louisiana's SO 2 nonattainment plan meets the applicable requirements of CAA sections 172, 179(d), 191, and 192.

The public comment period for the proposed rulemaking ended on June 9, 2025. EPA did not receive any comments.

EPA is finalizing approval of Louisiana's attainment plan submitted on April 2, 2025, as a revision to Louisiana's SIP, for attaining the 2010 1-hour SO 2 primary NAAQS for Evangeline Parish. EPA is also taking final action to approve as a source-specific revision to the SIP and incorporate by reference into the State's SIP, the Administrative Order on Consent between LDEQ and Cabot, which provides the enforceable control strategy for the Evangeline Parish area.

In this action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Louisiana AOC for Cabot Corporation's Ville Platte Plant, effective March 28, 2025, as described in section III of this preamble, Final Action. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the final rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to EPA.

The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Missouri on February 15, 2019, and a supplemental submission on August 1, 2019. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-2.260 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer”. The purpose of the state regulation is to restrict volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the Kansas City metropolitan area, specifically in Jackson, Clay, and Platte counties, that contribute to the formation of ozone. Missouri made multiple revisions to the rule. These revisions clarify rule language on testing and reporting, improves consistency with the St. Louis rule 10 CSR 10-5.220 that regulates the same facilities, update incorporations by reference to other state rules, add definitions specific to the rule, revise unnecessarily restrictive or duplicative language, and make administrative wording changes. These revisions meet the requirements of the CAA, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as well as the EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical support document (TSD) included in this docket.

The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The State provided public notice on this SIP revision from June 15, 2018, to September 6, 2018, and held a public hearing on August 30, 2018. Missouri received twenty-one (21) comments from five (5) sources during the comment period on 10 CSR 10-2.260. The EPA provided twelve comments. Missouri included additional clarification to the EPA by submitting supplemental information on August 1, 2019, to clarify and answer questions the EPA made during the comment period. Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on public comments prior to submitting to the EPA, as noted in the State submission included in the docket for this action. As explained above and in more detail in the technical support document, which is part of this docket, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

The public comment period on the EPA's proposed rule opened May 8, 2025, the date of its publication in the Federal Register and closed on June 9, 2025 (90 FR 19460). During this period, the EPA received no comments.

The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-2.260 “Control of Emissions During Petroleum Liquid Storage, Loading and Transfer.”

In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-2.260 discussed in section I. of this preamble and as set forth below in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52. The purpose of this state regulation is to restrict VOC emissions from the handling of petroleum liquids to reduce hydrocarbon emissions in the Kansas City metropolitan area that contribute to the formation of ozone. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation. 1

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because SIP actions are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866;

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below: