Table of Contents I. Background II. Basis for the Rule III. Basis for Issuing an Interim Final Rule A. Urgent and Compelling Circumstances Exist B. DOE Solicits Comments IV. Procedural Requirements A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. National Environmental Policy Act D. Executive Order 13132 E. Executive Order 13175 F. Executive Order 13211 G. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 H. Paperwork Reduction Act I. Executive Orders 14154 and 14192 J. Congressional Notification VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Background

The Department of Energy (“DOE”) is issuing this interim final rule to codify procedures for implementing voluntary agreements pursuant to Section 708 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (“DPA”), Public Law 81-774 (Sept. 8, 1950) (codified at 50 U.S.C. 4558). Section 708(c)(1) of the DPA provides that upon finding that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs, the President may consult with representatives of industry, business, financing, agriculture, labor, and other interests in order to provide for the making by such persons, with the approval of the President, of voluntary agreements and plans of action to help provide for the national defense. 50 U.S.C. 4558(c)(1).

The President effectively made such a finding when signing Executive Order (“E.O.”) 14302 (Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base). 90 FR 22595 (May 29, 2025). E.O. 14302, among other things, emphasized that the United States currently faces a variety of serious energy-related challenges ultimately affecting national security and preparedness. These challenges include the global race to dominate in artificial intelligence, a growing need for energy independence, and the need for access to uninterruptible power supplies for national security. Id. It noted further that the United States' nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure has severely atrophied, leaving the Nation heavily dependent on foreign sources of uranium as well as for uranium enrichment and conversion services. Id. The seriousness of this situation is both well-known and well-documented. See, e.g., EIA, U.S. Nuclear Generators Import Nearly All the Uranium Concentrate They Use, In-Brief Analysis (Jan. 30, 2025) (detailing nearly complete reliance on imported uranium concentrate used in making nuclear fuel for U.S. reactors); America's Awkward Energy Insecurity Problem, Foreign Policy (Jan. 20, 2025) (highlighting Russia's current complete monopoly on the commercial production of fuel that would be used in the coming generation of advanced nuclear plants that would provide the extra power needed to run data centers and power artificial intelligence); and U.S. Ramps Up Hunt for Uranium to End Reliance on Russia, NY Times, Sept. 30, 2024 (quoting one uranium mining executive's characterization of domestic uranium production as being like “a broken arm that's been in a cast for a long time . . . The muscle atrophies, and that's where our industry is.”). This situation is further exacerbated by the fact that since 2017, 87 percent of all new nuclear reactors that have been installed are based on reactor designs from two foreign countries. 90 FR 22595.

Reversing this situation requires swift and decisive action “to jumpstart America's nuclear energy industrial base and ensure our national and economic security by increasing fuel availability and production, securing civil nuclear supply chains, improving the efficiency with which advanced nuclear reactors are licensed, and preparing our workforce to establish America's energy dominance and accelerate our path towards a more secure and independent energy future.” Id. Although some initial steps have been taken to address current vulnerabilities, such as the enactment of the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act, Public Law 118-62 (May 13, 2024) and the repurposing of $2.72 billion in funding intended for the Civilian Nuclear Credit Program towards the development of domestic uranium enrichment capacity, see Consolidated Appropriations Act, Div. D—Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, Sec. 312 (March 9, 2024), these steps, while critical, are insufficient to ensure that the United States can break its current dependency on foreign-sourced uranium and develop a reliable supply of domestically-sourced nuclear fuel.

Additionally, a recent DOE report documented the status of U.S. grid reliability and security. See DOE, Report on Evaluating U.S. Grid Reliability and Security (July 7, 2025). Significantly, the report noted that numerous factors increase the risks to the reliability of the U.S. electric grid. These factors, such as the current pace of retirement of electric power capacity generation plus load growth (which is projected to increase the risk of power outages by 100-fold by 2030), the insufficiency of the currently planned replacement generation supply, and the projected load growth of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) innovation, point to the urgent necessity of robust and rapid reforms. These reforms are crucial to powering enough AI data centers while safeguarding grid reliability. See generally, DOE, Resource Adequacy Report—Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid, at 1 (July 2025).

The projected increases in demand are expected to severely stress the electrical grid. These expected load increases are already being reflected in the mandatory integrated resource plans (“IRPs”) that utilities routinely file with state regulators regarding their planned usage of various resources to meet those projected energy demands. (An IRP is essentially a forecast of a utility's load obligations and its plan to reliably meet those obligations by supply side and demand side resources over a set period of time.) In at least one case, projected increases as a result of demands from new businesses moving into the state—including AI data centers—were identified as a key factor for the filing of an updated IRP highlighting a significant increase in its projected electrical energy demands. See Georgia Power, 2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update, at 1-2 and 9-10 (noting Georgia's significant increase in projected energy load demands from increased economic activity, including from AI data centers). Utility commissions also recognize the considerable lead-time currently required to incorporate new nuclear power reactors into the electrical grid. See State of North Carolina Utilities Commission (Raleigh), In the Matter of Biennial Consolidated Carbon Plan and Integrated Resource Plans of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, and Duke Energy Progress, Docket No. E-100, Sub 190, Order Accepting Stipulation, Granting Partial Waiver of Commission Rule R8-60A(d)(4), and Providing Further Direction for Future Planning, at 31, 63, 66, 92 (Note 6), 122-127, and 178-79 (Nov. 1, 2024) (supporting utility's plans for continued efforts towards adopting advanced reactor technology to help address projected load demand increases, including from the projected growth in data centers, and approving plans to develop power sourced from advanced nuclear generation while recognizing the accompanying time-related risks and encouraging the utility to move expediently to ensure new nuclear capacity is developed as soon as reasonably possible); and In re: Virginia Electric and Power Company's 2024 Integrated Resource Plan, at 8, 13, and Appendix 2A (Oct. 15, 2024) (projecting expected load growth to significantly outpace average PJM growth and attributing that a large part of that growth to data centers and electrification in the transportation sector).

To address the current national security risks to the energy supply of the United States, E.O. 14302 ordered DOE to utilize the authority provided to the President under section 708(c)(1) of the DPA, which was delegated to the Secretary of Energy pursuant to E.O. 13603 (National Defense Resources Preparedness), 77 FR 16651 (March 22, 2012). See E.O. 14302, Sec. 3(e), 90 FR 22596 (ordering the Secretary of Energy to utilize the President's authority under section 708(c)(1) of the DPA) and E.O. 13603, Sec. 403, 77 FR 16656 (authorizing the Secretary of Energy to adopt rules pursuant to section 708 of the DPA “that incorporate standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out.”). Section 708 of the DPA provides that an agency may develop and carry out voluntary agreements with industry to provide for the national defense or its preparedness programs. Industry participants in any voluntary agreement or plan of action under the DPA are provided with immunity for any civil or criminal action brought under the antitrust laws of the United States or any similar state law. 50 U.S.C. 4558(j). This antitrust immunity is limited to actions taken to develop or carry out a voluntary agreement or plan of action, in order to effectuate the purpose identified in the voluntary agreement or plan of action. Id. Any antitrust immunity conferred on the participants in a voluntary agreement or plan of action does not apply to any act or omission occurring after the termination of the voluntary agreement or plan of action. Id. DOE now seeks to promulgate procedures implementing Section 708 of the DPA, to initiate the voluntary agreement process for the domestic nuclear energy industry as ordered in E.O. 14302. DOE is not the first federal agency to promulgate rules implementing Section 708 of the DPA. See 46 FR 2349 (Jan. 9, 1981) (promulgating Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations relating to voluntary agreements under section 708 of the DPA and concurred on by the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior, Commerce, and Transportation). The rule details, among other things, its overall scope, the applicability of anti-trust protections for entities operating under a voluntary agreement, the procedures for the maintenance and availability of certain materials, meeting attendance provisions, and the make-up of voluntary agreement and plan of action participants. DOE seeks to implement this interim final rule pursuant to the authority granted to it under section 708(c)(1) of the DPA and E.O. 14302 and delegated to the Secretary of Energy through E.O. 13603.

This interim final rule is based on the statutory authority granted to the President and delegated to the Secretary of Energy to seek voluntary agreements and develop plans of action with domestic nuclear energy companies to address the direct threat to the national defense or preparedness programs of the United States as it relates to the nuclear industrial base. This action follows the provisions of section 708 of the DPA and E.O. 13603 and E.O. 14302.

E.O. 14302 instructed DOE to utilize the authority provided to the President under section 708(c)(1) of the DPA (and delegated to the Secretary of Energy through E.O. 13603) to seek voluntary agreements with domestic nuclear energy companies and to prioritize agreements with those companies that have achieved objective milestones for the cooperative procurement of LEU and HALEU. 90 FR 22596. Section 708(e)(1) of the DPA requires the Secretary of Energy to promulgate rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), incorporating standards and procedures by which voluntary agreements and plans of action may be developed and carried out. See 50 U.S.C. 4558(e)(1). Section 708(e) also sets forth the rulemaking process for DOE to generally follow, including the application of a 30-day delay between the publication of a final rule and the rule's effective date. 50 U.S.C. 4558(e)(2(B). Relatedly, Section 709 of the DPA permits the waiver of the notice and comment requirements where urgent and compelling circumstances make providing an opportunity for notice and comment of not less than 30 days before the promulgation of a final rule impracticable. 50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(1).

The provisions in this rule follow those standards and procedures provided in Section 708 of the DPA. DOE's promulgation of this rule does not deviate from those established standards and procedures.

In light of the presence of urgent and compelling circumstances, DOE is availing itself of the provisions under section 709 of the DPA while remaining consistent with section 708 to ensure that the public has a meaningful opportunity to provide comments. To this end, DOE is issuing this interim final rule but delaying its effective date until the end of a concurrent 30-day comment period.

Section 709 expressly exempts any regulation issued under the DPA from the administrative procedures of the APA. See 50 U.S.C. 4559(a) (explicitly exempting sections 551 through 559 of title 5 from any regulation issued under the DPA). That provision also prescribes rulemaking procedures including the opportunity for notice and comment. See 50 U.S.C. 4559(b) (“. . . any regulation issued under this chapter shall be published in the Federal Register and opportunity for public comment shall be provided for not less than 30 days, consistent with the requirements of section 553(b) of title 5.”)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Section 709 allows for the waiver of the notice and comment requirements and the issuance of regulations on a temporary basis when the officer authorized to issue the regulation finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with such requirements impracticable, the regulation is issued on a temporary basis, and the publication of such temporary regulation is accompanied by the finding, a brief statement of the reasons for such finding, and an opportunity for public comment is provided for not less than 30 days before any regulation becomes final. See 50 U.S.C. 4559(b)(2).

DOE finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with notice and comment requirements impracticable. The President invoked the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601, et seq ) and declared a national energy emergency in January of this year through the issuance of E.O. 14156 (Declaring a National Energy Emergency), 90 FR 8433 (Jan. 29, 2025), noting that the inadequacy of the current energy supply and infrastructure. E.O. 14156 also recognized that the integrity and expansion of the Nation's energy infrastructure is an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States' national and economic security and that hostile state and non-state foreign actors have targeted the Nation's domestic energy infrastructure, weaponized current U.S. reliance on foreign energy, and abused their ability to cause dramatic swings within international commodity markets. 90 FR 8433. E.O. 14302 also identifies the peril facing the Nation with respect to its energy needs and determined that the current state of domestic energy needs requires expeditious action and authorized the Secretary of Energy to take immediate steps to address this situation through section 708 of the DPA.

E.O. 14302 identifies the national defense threat facing the Nation with respect to its domestic energy needs. E.O. 14302 determined that expeditious action is required to address this domestic energy national security threat and authorized the Secretary of Energy to take immediate steps to strengthen the domestic nuclear energy industry through section 708 of the DPA. Following the normal notice and comment process would hamper DOE's ability to expeditiously engage with industry on how to reverse the current trend of declining energy capacity in the face of projected significant increases in energy demand that, if left unmet, will pose severe national and economic security consequences for the Nation. Given the urgent nature of this national defense threat, the resulting need for speed and certainty, and the fact that this rulemaking sets out only the procedural requirements that directly follow section 708 of the DPA, the administrative process under 5 U.S.C. 551 through 5 U.S.C. 559 is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

Given these findings, the President effectively made the urgent and compelling finding, now reiterated by the Secretary of Energy, that the United States currently faces a variety of serious energy-related challenges ultimately affecting national security and preparedness, including a global race to dominate in artificial intelligence, a growing need for energy independence, and access to uninterruptible power supplies for national security. And as noted earlier, these challenges are well-documented and well-known. Accordingly, in light of these facts, the Secretary of Energy finds that following the typical notice and comment process would hamper DOE's ability to expeditiously engage with industry on ways to reverse the current trend of declining energy capacity in the face of projected significant increases in energy demand that, if left unmet, will pose severe national and economic security consequences for the Nation.

Moreover, this interim final rule follows those long-standing procedural provisions already enacted as part of the DPA and merely prescribes how DOE will act when seeking to develop voluntary agreements under Section 708 of the DPA as well as the process for implementing those voluntary agreements. These are strictly procedural provisions and comparable to those already in place elsewhere to implement this provision. See 44 CFR 332 (providing Federal Emergency Management Agency procedures for implementing voluntary agreements under Section 708). Given the determinations reflected in E.O. 14156 and E.O. 14302, the nature of this rulemaking in setting out procedural requirements that directly follow section 708 of the DPA, and the need for speed and certainty, DOE finds notice and comment impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, consistent with section 709 of the DPA, DOE is implementing this rule on a temporary basis.

DOE also recognizes, however, that section 708 of the DPA provides that the rule shall not be effective less than 30 days after its publication. Given this required delay in the effective date and DOE's interest in ensuring an opportunity for public comment, DOE is providing a 30-day comment period for the public to provide feedback on this procedural rule. That comment period will run concurrently with the 30-day delayed effective date. With these steps, DOE is satisfying its rulemaking procedural obligations under sections 708 and 709 of the DPA.

To the extent that public comment may inform DOE as to whether it has legal authority to make a different choice than the one it has taken in this interim final rule, DOE's solicitation of public comment for 30-days following the publication of the rule is intended to accommodate that possibility. And though DOE seeks comments to obtain the public's views, such comments could not alter the legal realities that create the swift need for such a change. DOE notes that this interim final rule is not effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register and it will consider any comments submitted in response to this action and will address those comments when issuing a final rule, consistent with the procedure provided in section 709.

E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this regulatory action is consistent with these principles.

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” under E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563, and has not reviewed this action.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment. As previously stated, Section 709 expressly exempts any regulation issued under the DPA from the administrative procedures of the APA. See 50 U.S.C. 4559(a) (explicitly exempting sections 551 through 559 of title 5 from any regulation issued under the DPA). Additionally, Section 709 allows for the waiver of the notice and comment requirements, and DOE finds that urgent and compelling circumstances make compliance with notice and comment requirements impracticable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared for this interim final rule. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a).

NEPA does not require agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis before establishing or updating agency procedures. Agency procedures for implementing the voluntary agreement and plans of action provisions under section 708 of the DPA are not subject to NEPA. DOE has also issued regulations that are currently in effect that note certain types of actions that are excepted from NEPA review. Under those regulations, 10 CFR part 1021, appendix A, includes an exception for procedural rulemakings from NEPA review. See 90 FR 29676 (July 3, 2025). That exception, Exception A6, applies to rulemakings that are strictly procedural, such as rulemakings establishing procedures for technical and pricing proposals and establishing contract clauses and contracting practices for the purchase of goods and services. DOE has determined that this interim final rule falls within the scope of A6 and is not subject to review under NEPA. Therefore, DOE does not intend to conduct a NEPA analysis of this interim final rule.

E.O. 13132 “Federalism”, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt state law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined the interim final rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law beyond what is already provided for under Federal law and does 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. No further action is required by E.O. 13132.

Under E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000), DOE may not issue a discretionary rule that has Tribal implications or that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments. DOE has determined that this interim final rule will not have such effects and has concluded that E.O. 13175 does not apply to this interim final rule.

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

This interim final rule does not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and is therefore not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires Federal agencies to examine closely the impacts of regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments. Subsection 101(5) of title I of that law defines a Federal intergovernmental mandate to include a regulation that would impose upon State, local, or Tribal governments an enforceable duty, except a condition of Federal assistance or a duty arising from participating in a voluntary Federal program. Title II of that law requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, other than to the extent such actions merely incorporate requirements specifically set forth in a statute. Section 202 of the title requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of any rule that includes a Federal mandate which may result in costs to State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). 2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b). Section 204 of that title requires each agency that proposed a rule containing a significant Federal intergovernmental mandate to develop an effective process for obtaining meaningful and timely input from elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments. 2 U.S.C. 1534. This interim final rule does not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This interim final rule does not impose any new information collection burden that would require additional review or approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

DOE has examined this interim final rule and has determined that it is consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154 “Unleashing American Energy,” E.O. 14192, “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and E.O. 14302, “Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base.” This interim final rule is a necessary prerequisite to implement any voluntary agreement or plan of action required to address the domestic energy crisis identified in E.O. 14302. Accordingly, DOE has developed this regulatory action as a “statutorily required rulemaking,” pursuant to Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation.

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress and to the Comptroller General a report on this interim final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that this interim final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this interim final rule; request for comments.

This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 20, 2025, by Chris Wright, Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register .

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR72-101, -102, -201, -202, -211, -212, and -212A airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2025 (90 FR 10465). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0159, dated August 16, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0159) (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 that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0159. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the failure of the chemical oxygen mask release system to release the mask when necessary, resulting in possible injury to passengers and crew.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0210.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM 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 NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0159, which specifies new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits. 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 40 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A330-200, A330-200 Freighter, A330-300, A330-800, and A330-900 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2025 (90 FR 9520). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0200, dated October 21, 2024, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2024-0200) (also referred to as the MCAI). The MCAI states that an incorrect shot peening application has been implemented in production starting from 2008. Fatigue life of affected parts (certain splice fittings) can consequently be lower than the certified value. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive DET of certain splice fittings and, depending on findings, repair, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0200. 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-2025-0200.

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

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

Two individual commenters requested that the proposed AD be revised to allow NDT techniques, such as ultrasonic or eddy current inspections, rather than rely solely on detailed visual inspections. The commenters noted that NDT methods are widely used in aviation and can detect internal cracks that may not be visible, which reduces the risk of undetected structural failures and minimizes aircraft downtime.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests. EASA, as the state of design authority for these airplanes, analyzed the data, considered the recommendations of the manufacturer, and determined that detailed inspections are adequate to address the unsafe condition. The FAA concurs with EASA's determination. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

Two individual commenters suggested that a risk-based inspection schedule could optimize resources by allowing airplanes with fewer operational hours to undergo inspections at longer intervals. The commenters stated that this strategy is used in other airworthiness directives and would enhance the proposed rule's effectiveness without imposing an excessive burden on operators.

The FAA disagrees with the commenters' requests. EASA, as the state of design authority for these airplanes, performed a risk assessment and determined the compliance time was appropriate based on the safety implications of the identified unsafe condition, as well as the practical aspect of completing the required actions during regular maintenance periods. However, the FAA will consider requests for an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that a risk-based inspection schedule would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in response to this comment.

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 NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0200, which specifies procedures for repetitive DET of affected parts (splice fittings at the front windshield side post, on left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) sides, having part number (P/N) F531-23024-200 and P/N F531-23024-201, respectively) for cracking, and depending on findings, repairing cracking. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 58 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in 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:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-23-08, Amendment 39-22235 (87 FR 66084, November 2, 2022) (AD 2022-23-08). AD 2022-23-08 applied to Viking Model DHC-3 airplanes, all serial numbers.

AD 2022-23-08 required a visual inspection of the stabilizer actuator to confirm that the stabilizer actuator lock ring is present, correctly seated in the groove in the upper housing, and engaged in the clamp nut, applicable corrective actions, application of a torque seal, and sending the inspection results to the FAA. The FAA issued AD 2022-23-08 to correct an unsafe condition identified as a missing stabilizer actuator lock ring.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2025 (90 FR 26228). The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46, dated December 23, 2024 (Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46) (also referred to as the MCAI).

The MCAI states that a fatal DHC-3 airplane accident occurred on September 4, 2022, at Mutiny Bay, near Freeland, WA. Witnesses reported that the airplane was in level flight before it entered a slight climb, then pitched down in a near-vertical descent until it impacted water resulting in fatal injuries to the pilot and the nine passengers.

The MCAI also states that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) carried out the accident investigation and released a final investigation report on September 29, 2023. The NTSB noted in the report that the stabilizer actuator clamp nut on the accident airplane separated from the stabilizer barrel by unthreading and the lock ring securing the clamp nut to the barrel was missing. The NTSB also found an unapproved moisture seal had been installed on the stabilizer actuator, which is not part of the airplane's type design, leading to increased rotational friction between the clamp nut and eye bolt, which has the potential to increase the rate of separation between the clamp nut and barrel in the absence of the lock ring.

To address the unsafe condition, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 requires initial and repetitive inspections of the stabilizer actuator to confirm that the stabilizer actuator lock ring is present, correctly seated in the groove in the upper housing, and fully engaged in the clamp nut. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 also requires application of a witness mark (torque seal) and prohibits the installation of a stabilizer actuator that has not been inspected in accordance with Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 or has not been marked. If the lock ring is missing or incorrectly installed, Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 requires the rectification of the actuator in accordance with Viking Service Letter DHC3-SL-27-001, dated October 25, 2022, or replacement with a serviceable actuator, and prohibits the installation of affected parts.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain none of the requirements of AD 2022-23-08. Instead, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. See “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI” for a general discussion of these differences.

The FAA is issuing this AD to ensure that the stabilizer actuator clamp nut does not separate from the stabilizer barrel by unthreading and to ensure that the lock ring securing the clamp nut to the stabilizer barrel does not separate. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in a reduction or loss of pitch control during flight with consequent loss of control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1107.

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, 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. This AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46, which specifies procedures for initial and repetitive inspections of the stabilizer actuator, applicable corrective actions, and torque seal (witness mark) application. Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 also prohibits the installation of any stabilizer actuator unless it is a serviceable part.

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.

Where Part V of Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 specifies installing a new clamp nut and safety wire on the horizontal stabilizer as an optional terminating action, this AD requires installing a secondary retention feature using a method approved by the FAA within 330 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD.

Where Transport Canada AD CF-2024-46 requires reporting any movement of the lock ring or witness mark to the Transport Canada Web Service Difficulty Reporting System (WSDRS), this AD does not require that action.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 64 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 actions that are required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:

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

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

The FAA has determined that 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 issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2025 (90 FR 21700). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2025-07, dated January 27, 2025 (Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. The MCAI states a production quality escape was discovered, where the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA was incorrectly installed. This condition, if not corrected, could compromise the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA and cause a mechanical disconnect of the horizontal stabilizer leading to a loss of control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a detailed visual inspection of the interface pin of the HSTA to determine if the interface pin is incorrectly installed, and applicable on-condition actions, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07. 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-2025-0911.

The FAA received a comment from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM 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 NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2025-07, which specifies procedures for a detailed visual inspection of the interface pin of the secondary load path in the upper gimbal of the HSTA to determine if the interface pin is incorrectly installed, and applicable on-condition actions including modification of an incorrectly installed interface pin. 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 90 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 action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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:

Comments Invited

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-2025-2264; Project Identifier MCAI-2025-01204-R” 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 Steven Warwick, 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.

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2025-0142, dated July 7, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0142) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on all Leonardo S.p.A. Model A109A, A109AII, A109C, A109K2, and A119 helicopters and on certain serial-numbered AW119MKII helicopters. The MCAI states a report was received of incorrect installation of the bolts that attach the pitch (longitudinal) actuator assembly and the roll (lateral) actuator assembly to their respective bellcrank assemblies of the cyclic control system. Investigation determined that the maintenance instructions to install the bolt included potentially misleading information. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in the reduced range of the helicopter cyclic control and loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2264.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2025-0142, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the bolts that attach the pitch (longitudinal) actuator assembly and the roll (lateral) actuator assembly to their respective bellcrank assemblies for proper installation. Depending on the results, EASA AD 2025-0142 specifies inspecting the bolts and support assemblies for damage and interference and replacing any damaged or incorrectly installed bolt with a serviceable bolt. In addition, EASA AD 2025-0142 prohibits accomplishing any maintenance action using certain maintenance instructions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority (CAA) 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 EASA AD 2025-0142, described previously, as incorporated by reference, 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 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 2025-0142 is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD requires compliance with EASA AD 2025-0142 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 2025-0142 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 2025-0142. Material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0142 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-2264 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 incorrect installation of the bolts that attach the pitch (longitudinal) actuator assembly to the pitch (longitudinal) bellcrank assembly and the roll (lateral) actuator assembly to the roll (lateral) bellcrank assembly could cause the bolts to interfere with the support assembly. Incorrect installation of the bolts could result in the reduced range of the helicopter cyclic control, which could lead to loss of control of the helicopter. For this reason, the actions required by this AD must be accomplished within 25 hours time in-service. This compliance time 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 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 238 helicopters of U.S. registry.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any repairs that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of helicopters that might need these repairs:

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:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-1275 in the Federal Register (90 FR 27478; June 27, 2025) proposing to amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Elkhart, IN, and the Class E airspace at Goshen, IN. 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 D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 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 modifying the Class D and E airspace at Elkhart, Indiana and the Class E airspace at Goshen, Indiana due to airspace reviews conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Goshen VOR as part of the VOR MON Program.

For the Elkhart Municipal Airport, Elkhart, IN, Class D airspace, this action: (1) increases the radius from 4.3 miles to 4.7 miles of the airport; (2) updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; (3) increases the exclusion area from 1 mile to 1.5 miles around Mishawaka Pilots Club Airport; (4) updates the title of the South Bend, Michiana Regional Airport, IN, (previously Michiana, IN) Class C airspace contained within the legal description; and (5) updates the outdated term “Airport/Facility Directory” to “Chart Supplement”;

For the Elkhart Municipal Airport Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft above the surface, the action: (1) increases the radius from 6.8 miles to 7.2 miles of the airport; (2) adds an extension within 4 miles each side of the 270° bearing of the Elkhart Muni: RWY 27-LOC extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 11.4 miles west of the airport; (3) removes the exclusionary language as it is no longer required; and (4) updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;

For the Goshen Municipal Airport, Goshen, IN, Class E airspace extending upward from 700 ft above the surface, the action: (1) increases the radius from 6.8 miles to 7.9 miles of the airport; and (2) updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. 1 This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM is impracticable given the diminished window of time available prior to the event. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 29, 2025, in order to protect the public from the hazards associated with a fireworks event.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule is impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the fireworks display.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The COTP Detroit has determined that potential hazards associated with a fireworks show starting August 29, 2025, will be a safety concern for anyone within all navigable waters of the Maumee River within a 150-yard radius of Toledo Country Club in Toledo, OH. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the fireworks show.

This rule establishes a safety zone from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 29, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the Maumee River within a 150-yard radius of Toledo Country Club in Toledo, OH. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters while the fireworks show is being displayed. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from COTP Detroit or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 2 hours that will prohibit entry within all navigable waters of the Maumee River within a 150-yard radius of Toledo Country Club in Toledo, OH. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR  Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule under the authority in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This statutory provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because there is an immediate need to mitigate the risk of vessels transiting between private port authority managed yellow buoys & the end of the St. Thomas Cyril E. King runway because of their proximity to the low flying aircrafts. Prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with vessels transiting in the proximity of the runway of Cyril E. King Airport in St. Thomas, USVI. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety zone by August 5, 2025 or as soon as practicable after this date.

Also, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because prompt action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated with vessels transiting between private port authority managed yellow buoys & the end of the St. Thomas Cyril E. King runway and their proximity to the low flying aircrafts.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port Sector San Juan (COTP) has determined potential hazards associated with vessels transiting between private port authority managed yellow buoys & the end of the St. Thomas Cyril E. King runway and their proximity to the low flying aircrafts. There is a safety concern for any vessel transiting within approximately 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while a permanent solution is being assessed by the FAA, St. Thomas airport, and Coast Guard.

This rule establishes a safety zone from August 5, 2025, through September 30, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway within the two private port authority managed yellow buoys located at 18°20.288′ N—64°59.343′ W and 18°20.116′ N—64°59.343′ W. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the risks are assessed and solutions are proposed. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP San Juan or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders.

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it.

This regulatory action determination is based on: (1) the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by vessels transiting in the proximity of the approach to the Cyril E. King airport's runway; (2) although vessels may not enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without authorization from the COTP or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area outside the safety zone during the enforcement period.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 400 yards from shore directly west of the airport's runway within the two private port authority managed yellow buoys. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

I. Background

Section 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) directs the Administrator to develop regulations under that section and section 111(d) of the Act to limit emissions of nine air pollutants (particulate matter, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, and cadmium) from four categories of solid waste incineration units: municipal solid waste incinerators; hospital, medical, and infectious solid waste incinerators; commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators; and other solid waste incinerators.

On December 1, 2000, the EPA promulgated new source performance standards (NSPS) and EG to reduce air pollution from CISWI units, which are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subparts CCCC and DDDD, respectively. See 65 FR 75338. The EPA revised the NSPS and EG for CISWI units on March 21, 2011. See 76 FR 15704. Following promulgation of the 2011 CISWI rule, the EPA received petitions requesting that it reconsider numerous provisions in the rule. The EPA granted reconsideration on certain issues and, subsequently, on February 7, 2013, it promulgated a CISWI reconsideration rule. See 78 FR 9112. Subsequently, the EPA received petitions to reconsider certain provisions of the NSPS and EG for CISWI units. On January 21, 2015, the EPA granted reconsideration on four specific issues and subsequently, on June 23, 2016, it finalized reconsideration of the CISWI NSPS and EG. See 81 FR 40956.

Following promulgation of the June 23, 2016, final action, the EPA received requests from industry stakeholders and implementing agencies to clarify various issues with implementation of the standards. In addition, the EPA identified certain procedural issues, including testing and monitoring issues and inconsistencies within the rules, that required further clarification or correction. To address the issues, the EPA proposed amendments on June 15, 2018, to several provisions of the 2016 CISWI NSPS and EG. See 83 FR 28068. On April 16, 2019, the EPA finalized technical amendments to the June 15, 2018, proposal by promulgating clarifying changes and corrections to the 2016 CISWI rule. See 84 FR 15846. 1

Section 129(b)(2) of the CAA requires states to submit to the EPA for approval state plans and revisions that implement and enforce the EG—in this case, 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD. State plans and revisions must be at least as protective as the EG and become federally enforceable upon approval by the EPA. The procedures for submittal and adoption of state plans and revisions are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B.

On May 31, 2017, Florida submitted a state plan to implement and enforce the EG for existing CISWI units in the State, and submitted supplements on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018. 2 In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25633), the EPA proposed to approve Florida's State plan. Additional information concerning Florida's State plan submission and the rationale for the EPA's actions for this final rule are explained in the June 4, 2018, proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July 2, 2018. The EPA received one comment on the proposed action that is not relevant. The comment is included in the docket to this action.

The EPA is finalizing approval of Florida's section 129 State plan for CISWI units in the State, as submitted on May 31, 2017, and supplemented on December 19, 2017, and February 2, 2018. The State plan was submitted in full compliance with the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA, and 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and DDDD. 3 This approval is based on the rationale provided in the NPRM associated with this rulemaking. The EPA's approval is in accordance with the general provisions of plan approval found in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A, and is pursuant to the Agency's role under 42 U.S.C. 7411(d) and 7429(b). The EPA's approval of Florida's State plan is limited to those CISWI units that meet the criteria established in 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD, and grants the State authority to implement and enforce the performance standards and source requirements of the EG, except in those cases where authorities are specifically reserved for the EPA Administrator or his designee. Authorities retained by the EPA Administrator are those listed in 40 CFR 60.2542.

In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference of Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Chapter 62-204.800(9)(f), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, which became effective in the State of Florida on December 21, 2017. This incorporation establishes emission standards and compliance times for the control of air pollutants from certain CISWI units that commenced construction on or before June 4, 2010, or commenced modification or reconstruction after June 4, 2010, but no later than August 7, 2013. FAC Chapter 62-204.800(9)(f), Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units, provides details regarding Florida's adoption of the applicability provisions, compliance times, emission guidelines, operational standards, test methods, compliance provisions, monitoring requirements, reporting guidelines, recordkeeping guidelines, and definitions contained in the EPA's emission guidelines for existing CISWI units (40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD). The emissions standards and compliance times established within the Florida State plan are at least as stringent as those required by the EG for existing CISWI units subject to Subpart DDDD. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through the docket for this action, EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0184, at https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more information). This incorporation by reference has been approved by the Office of the Federal Register as of September 24, 2025, and the plan is federally enforceable under the CAA as of the effective date of this final rulemaking.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a 111(d)/129 plan submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. In reviewing 111(d)/129 plan submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations. 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 state plan approval 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 Florida State plan for existing CISWI units 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 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 October 24, 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 62 as follows:

Regulations Schedule for 2025

On January 21, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we) published in the Federal Register (90 FR 7056) a proposal to amend title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under §§ 20.100 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2025-26 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were illustrated in the diagram at the end of the January 21, 2025, proposed rule (90 FR 7056 at 7065).

We provided the meeting dates and locations for the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) on our website at https://www.fws.gov/event/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-migratory-bird-regulations-committee-meeting and Flyway Council meetings on flyway calendars posted on our website at https://www.fws.gov/partner/migratory-bird-program-administrative-flyways. On November 19, 2024, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory game birds and developed recommendations for the 2025-26 regulations for these species. The January 21, 2025, proposed rule provided detailed information on the proposed 2025-26 regulatory schedule.

On April 24, 2025, we published in the Federal Register (90 FR 17300) the proposed frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations during the 2025-26 season. On August 18, 2025, we published in the Federal Register (90 FR 40178) the final frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations, from which State wildlife conservation agency officials selected seasons, hours, areas, and limits for hunting migratory birds during the 2025-26 season.

The final rule described here is the final in the series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2025-26 season and deals specifically with amending subpart K of 50 CFR part 20. It sets hunting seasons, hours, areas, and limits for migratory game bird species. This final rule is the culmination of the annual rulemaking process allowing migratory game bird hunting, which started with the January 21, 2025, proposed rule. As discussed elsewhere in this document, we supplemented that proposal on April 24, 2025, and published final season frameworks on August 18, 2025, that provided the regulatory frameworks from which the States selected their hunting seasons. This final rule sets the migratory game bird hunting seasons based on that input from the States.

The programmatic document, “Second Final Supplement, USFWS, Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Hunting of Migratory Birds” (EIS No. 20130139), filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013, addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78 FR 32686), and our record of decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental assessments, the most recent being the Duck Hunting Regulations for the 2025-26 Season and its corresponding 2025 finding of no significant impact.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), provides that the Secretary shall insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Consequently, we conducted consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final frameworks (90 FR 40178, August 18, 2025) reflect any such modifications. The biological opinion is available from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. This action is a significant regulatory action, as defined under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).

An economic analysis was prepared for the 2025-26 migratory bird hunting season. This analysis was based on data from the 2011 and the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (National Survey), the most recent years for which data are available. See discussion under Required Determinations, Regulatory Flexibility Act, below. This analysis estimated consumer surplus for four alternatives for hunting regulations. As defined by OMB in Circular A-4, consumers' surplus is the difference between what a consumer pays for a unit of a good or service and the maximum amount the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit. The duck hunting regulatory alternatives are (1) not opening a hunting season; (2) issuing restrictive regulations that allow fewer days than the 2024-25 season; (3) issuing moderate regulations that allow more days than in Alternative 2 but fewer days than the 2024-25 season, and (4) issuing liberal regulations that allow days similar to the 2024-25 season. The estimated consumer surplus associated with liberal regulations issued for the 2024-25 season across all flyways was $624 million to $816 million (2024$). We also chose Alternative 4 (liberal regulations) for the 2009-10 through 2024-25 seasons. The 2025-26 analysis is part of the record for this rulemaking action and is available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127.

The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities, such as restaurants, grocery stores, lodging, transportation, and sporting goods stores under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). An initial regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared to analyze the economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business entities. This analysis is updated annually. The primary source of information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National Survey, which is generally conducted at 5-year intervals. The 2022 National Survey did not collect migratory bird expenditure data, so the 2025-26 migratory bird hunting season analysis is based on the 2011 and 2016 National Surveys and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it is estimated that migratory bird hunters will spend approximately $2.5 billion (2024$) at small businesses during the 2025-26 migratory bird hunting season. In summary, this final rule will have a significant beneficial economic impact on small entities. Without these annual regulations, States cannot establish migratory bird hunting seasons. A wide range of businesses and individuals benefit economically from the establishment of the annual migratory bird hunting regulations. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis can be found in the economic analysis of the migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2025-26 season. Copies of the economic analysis are available upon request from the person listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2024-0127.

Pursuant to subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (also known as the Congressional Review Act or CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), OIRA designated this action as a major rule, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), because it is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this final rule establishes a regulatory program for activity related to hunting and because hunting seasons are time sensitive, we establish the effective date of this final rule using the exemption in the CRA at 5 U.S.C. 808(1).

This final rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0019, “North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey” (expires 02/28/2027).

• 1018-0023, “Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20” (expires 05/31/2026). Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.

• 1018-0171, “Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 CFR part 20” (expires 11/30/2027).

You may view the information collection request(s) at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. ) that this final rulemaking does not include any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

The Department, in promulgating this final rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule, authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This final rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this final rule will allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.

E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. While this final rule is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and has not been designated by OIRA as a significant energy action. Therefore, no statement of energy effects is required.

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes with respect to impacts to Tribes' treaty rights to hunt waterfowl. We have determined that there are de minimis effects on Indian Tribes for that aspect of their treaty rights. Through this process to establish annual hunting regulations, we regularly coordinate with Tribes that are affected by this final rulemaking action. Tribes have the opportunity to attend spring and fall flyway meetings, provide comments on Federal Register publications concerning migratory bird hunting, and, whenever needed, we hold informal consultations with Tribes regarding trust resources, trust assets, health, and safety. Also, in an effort to streamline the migratory bird hunting regulation process, four informational webinars were held to present a proposed new process to Tribes, giving Tribes the opportunity to provide input and to ask questions about the Tribal migratory bird hunting regulations. This final rule will not 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.

This final rule is general in nature and does not directly affect any specific Tribal lands, treaty rights, or Tribal trust resources. In addition, this final rule does not interfere with the ability of Tribes to manage themselves or their funds or to regulate migratory bird activities on Tribal lands. Therefore, we conclude that this final rule does not have “Tribal implications” under section 1(a) of E.O. 13175 with respect to waterfowl treaty rights. Thus, formal government-to-government consultation is not required by E.O. 13175 and related policies of the Department of the Interior. We will continue to collaborate with Tribes on concerns related to migratory bird hunting regulations.

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the MBTA. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs.

Any State or Tribe may be more restrictive in its regulations than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have federalism implications and do not warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the January 21, 2025, Federal Register , opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2025-26 hunting season. We subsequently published in the Federal Register the proposed regulatory frameworks for the 2025-26 migratory game bird hunting season on April 24, 2025, which also included a request for public comments. We previously addressed all pertinent comments from both rules in our August 18, 2025, final rule (90 FR 40178 at 40179-40185).

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting, by its nature, operates under a time constraint as seasons must be established each year or hunting seasons remain closed. However, we intend that the public be provided extensive opportunity for public input and involvement in compliance with Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. ) requirements. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we concluded were the longest periods possible for public comment and the most opportunities for public involvement. We also provided notification of our participation in multiple Flyway Council meetings, opportunities for additional public review and comment on all Flyway Council proposals for regulatory change, and opportunities for additional public review during the SRC meeting. Therefore, we conclude that sufficient public notice and opportunity for involvement have been given to affected persons.

Further, States need sufficient time to communicate these season selections to their affected publics, and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement these seasons. Thus, we find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and, therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), these regulations will take effect less than 30 days after publication. Accordingly, with each conservation agency having had an opportunity to participate in selecting the hunting seasons desired for its State or Territory on those species of migratory birds for which open seasons are now prescribed, and consideration having been given to all other relevant matters presented, certain sections of title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the CFR are hereby amended as set forth below.

For the reasons described in the preamble, title 50, chapter I, subchapter B, part 20, subpart K of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: