FCIC serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world-class risk management tools to rural America.

Federal crop insurance policies typically consist of the Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions (CEPP), if applicable, other applicable endorsements or options, the actuarial documents for the insured agricultural commodity, the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, if applicable, and the applicable regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV.

The Basic Provisions provide underlying policy terms and conditions applicable to many insurable commodities. Specifically, the Area Risk Protection Insurance (ARPI) Basic Provisions apply to policies with area-based coverage, typically established at the county level, and the Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) Basic Provisions apply to policies that provide individualized coverage. Where the terms and conditions are the same, FCIC changes both the ARPI and CCIP Basic Provisions in this rule. The Crop Provisions identify which Basic Provisions are applicable and establish specific provisions of insurance for each insurable commodity. The Special Provisions and actuarial documents establish county-level provisions for each insurable commodity. Administrative regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV apply to the entire Federal Crop Insurance Program. Subpart X is the administrative regulation that provides a mechanism for requesting interpretations of crop insurance policies and procedures.

FCIC is amending the following regulations:

• Subpart X—Interpretations of Statutory Provisions, Policy Provisions, and Procedures (7 CFR 400.765-768);

• Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 407);

• Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457);

• Cotton crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.104);

• Sugar beet crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.109);

• Safflower crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.125);

• Guaranteed production plan of fresh market tomato crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.128);

• Green pea crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.137);

• Fresh market tomato (dollar plan) crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.139);

• Fresh market pepper crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.148);

• Forage seeding crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.151); and

• Canola and rapeseed crop insurance provisions (7 CFR 457.161).

Definitions specific to Subpart X are located in 7 CFR 400.765, definitions specific to the ARPI Basic Provisions and corresponding Crop Provisions are located in 7 CFR 407.9, and definitions specific to the CCIP Basic Provisions and corresponding Crop Provisions are located in 7 CFR 457.8. Throughout this rule, the terms “Crop Provisions,” “Special Provisions,” and “policy” are used as defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8.

The changes to crop insurance policies resulting from the amendments in this rule are applicable for the 2026 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2025. For all other crops, the changes to the crop insurance policies resulting from the amendments in this rule are applicable for the 2027 and succeeding crop years.

The changes to the Basic Provisions are described below, with important changes impacting both the ARPI and CCIP Basic Provisions discussed first, followed by changes impacting only the CCIP Basic Provisions, and clarifications and corrections last.

On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law H.R. 1 (Pub. L. 119-21), also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). FCIC is amending the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 407) by revising the ARPI Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 407.9 and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to implement changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Act made by OBBBA. These changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Act include expanding benefits for beginning farmers and ranchers. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) is also implementing section 10501 (Beginning Farmer and Rancher Benefit) of OBBBA in Manager's Bulletin MGR-25-006 with an amendment to the CCIP and ARPI Basic Provisions.

For up to 10 crop years, beginning farmers or ranchers will receive an additional 5 percentage point premium subsidy for the first two crop years, an additional 3 percentage point premium subsidy the third crop year, and an additional 1 percentage point premium subsidy the fourth crop year. Thus, when considering the existing beginning farmer or rancher benefits as well as the additional beginning farmer or rancher benefits provided by OBBBA, beginning farmers or ranchers will be eligible to receive a total additional premium subsidy of 15 percentage points in the first two crop years, 13 percentage points in the third crop year, 11 percentage points in the fourth crop year, and 10 percentage points in the fifth through tenth crop years, as opposed to receiving a flat 10 percentage points of additional premium subsidy for 5 years under previous policy.

In this rule, FCIC is revising the definition of “beginning farmer or rancher” in section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions and section 1 of the ARPI Basic Provisions to increase the eligibility period of a beginning farmer or rancher who has not actively operated and managed a farm or ranch in any State, with an insurable interest in a crop or livestock as an owner-operator, landlord, tenant, or sharecropper, from 5 crop years to 10 crop years. FCIC is also revising section 7(h) of the ARPI Basic Provisions and 7(g) of the CCIP Basic Provisions to add the descriptive heading, “Additional premium subsidy”.

FCIC is amending the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 407) by revising the ARPI Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 407.9 and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to clarify that for revenue protection coverage, the harvest price will be set equal to the projected price when data are not available to follow the approved methodology. Projected price and harvest price are defined in section 1 of the ARPI Basic Provisions and section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions, and they are determined in accordance with the CEPP.

With revenue protection coverage, a policyholder is eligible for an indemnity payment when there is a revenue loss, such as when the harvest price is less than the projected price (minus the applicable deductible). The projected price is typically established prior to the growing season with data available before planting begins and the harvest price is established during the harvest and delivery period. The approved methodology and data sources for determining the projected and harvest prices are included in the policy (specifically, in the CEPP) provided to producers prior to their deadline for purchasing insurance, so producers can make informed decisions about their coverage. The policy previously specified that if the harvest price cannot be calculated according to the CEPP, the harvest price “will be determined and announced by FCIC.” This phrase did not provide producers with advance notice about how the harvest price would be determined if the price cannot be calculated following the approved methodology.

In this rule, FCIC is establishing in section 12(d) of the ARPI Basic Provisions and section 3(c)(5)(ii) of the CCIP Basic Provisions that, if data are not available to follow the approved methodology, the harvest price will be set equal to the projected price, essentially removing revenue coverage, and the policyholder's premium will be updated and refunded, as applicable, as if they had purchased yield protection. With these changes, producers will have assurance that they will receive the protection they pay for, even if data do not support revenue coverage at the time of harvest.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, in section 3(f)(1)(ii) to add an exception so that policyholders who transfer their policy to a new AIP for the upcoming year do not need to provide end of year production reporting to the current (and soon-to-be prior) AIP if they do not have a claim. This change provides procedural relief made at the request of stakeholders. Previously, the policy required the policyholder to report their current crop year's production to their current AIP, even if they had transferred their policy to a new AIP for the upcoming year. Concerns were raised that once a policyholder initiates a transfer to a new AIP, both the policyholder and current AIP would prefer to end the business relationship and allow the new AIP to be responsible for administering the production report. Undoing the requirement to continue to report to the current AIP prevents against potential retribution by the Agent the producer has severed ties with. This change to allow policyholders to revert to reporting prior year production information to the new AIP only and not requiring the new AIP to provide production information to the ceding AIP was developed to address concerns and feedback from AIPs, agents, and policyholders in multiple conferences, meetings, and individual requests for relief. This is an added protection for the producer participating in crop insurance. Production reporting for claims purposes and any audit is unchanged and will continue with the current (and soon-to-be prior) AIP for the current year.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8 to remove an overly burdensome administrative requirement to verify that the acreage was insured in the past based on the “1 in 4” rule regarding prevented planting payments.

For a policyholder to be eligible for a prevented planting payment, the CCIP Basic Provisions require that the acreage must be physically available for planting. The “1 in 4” rule is one part of the eligibility requirement to prove that the acreage is physically available for planting. Previously, the “1 in 4” rule required that in at least 1 out of the previous 4 years the acreage must have been:

1. Planted to a crop;

2. Insured; and

3. Harvested, or if not harvested, adjusted for claim purposes due to an insured cause of loss (other than a cause of loss related to flood, excess moisture, drought, or other cause of loss specified in the Special Provisions).

The specific requirement that the acreage had been “insured” presented substantial challenges to AIPs and producers. If the same operator maintains control of the acreage, proving insurance history on the acreage was relatively simple. However, it was difficult to prove that the acreage had been insured for beginning farmers or ranchers or in any case where the operator for the acreage changed in the previous 4 years.

FCIC is removing the requirement that the acreage had been insured in section 17(f)(8)(i)(E)(2) and 17(f)(8)(ii) of the CCIP Basic Provisions to relieve producers and AIPs of the administrative burden of verifying insurance history while maintaining program integrity by continuing verification of planted and harvested history. All other eligibility requirements to prove that the acreage is physically available for planting remain the same.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to clarify the deadline for submitting written agreement requests for insuring a crop in a county that does not currently offer the policy (often known as an XC written agreement). Typically, the deadline for submitting written agreement requests is the cancellation date for the crop policy being requested. In counties where the crop policy is not available, the cancellation date is not always known or as appropriate as it might be due to agronomic differences across locations. Prior to this rule, the CCIP Basic Provisions were confusing and unnecessarily restrictive in terms of what crops could be used as a proxy. For example, if the Crop Provisions specify a cancellation date for “all other states,” that cancellation date may not be appropriate for the crop in the county requested by the written agreement. The same crop in a nearby state could be a better proxy for the deadline.

FCIC is clarifying that section 18(e)(2)(ii) of the CCIP Basic Provisions applies when neither the Crop Provisions, nor the Special Provisions, provide a cancellation date for the county. FCIC is also clarifying that the cancellation date for the requested crop or other insurable crops with similar agronomic conditions may be used as the written agreement deadline, regardless of whether that crop is located in the same state.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to clarify enterprise unit eligibility in section 34(a)(2)(i) and (ii) and to add the descriptive heading, “Whole Farm Unit” to 34(a)(3) of the CCIP Basic Provisions. Previously, the CCIP Basic Provisions stated that the acreage was eligible for enterprise units if the criteria establishing “the basis for” optional units were met (for example, the acreage was located in two or more sections, if “sections are the basis for optional units”). Use of the phrase “basis for” could be inferred to mean that the policyholder had to elect optional units based on that criteria, which is an incorrect interpretation. In order to be used for enterprise unit eligibility, optional units must only be “available by” that criteria.

FCIC is revising the CCIP Basic Provisions so that the regulation uses consistent language with the Crop Insurance Handbook to avoid any potential confusion regarding “the basis” for a requirement to have optional units established in order to qualify for enterprise units, when actually the policyholder is only required to have optional units available to qualify for enterprise units. This rule confirms a clarification that FCIC previously issued in the FCIC 18010 Crop Insurance Handbook, which states that the eligibility for enterprise units relies upon the availability of optional units where the insured acreage is located.

FCIC is amending the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 407) by revising the ARPI Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 407.9 and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to clarify and add definitions.

FCIC is clarifying the definition of “application” in section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions by moving cancellation and termination requirements to section 2 (Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination). Previously, the definition of “application” in section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions included requirements for submitting a new application when a policy is cancelled or terminated. These requirements are more appropriately included in section 2(f)(4) of the CCIP Basic Provisions to match how the requirements are specified in the equivalent section of the ARPI Basic Provisions. Relocating the requirements provides greater clarity and transparency, while the requirements remain unchanged.

FCIC is clarifying the definition of “cancellation date” in section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions and section 1 of the ARPI Basic Provisions. Prior to this rule, the definition of “cancellation date” only indicated that termination was a reason that a policy would not continue for a subsequent year. FCIC is amending the definition to add the term “or voided” to show that voidance is also a reason that a policy would not automatically continue for a subsequent year. Additional information on cancellation and termination is available in section 2 of the ARPI Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 407.9 and section 2 of the CCIP Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8.

FCIC is adding definitions for “cancellation” and “termination” in section 1 of the ARPI Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 407.9 and section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8 to provide a clear definition of the words used throughout the regulations. “Void” is already defined in Section 1 of the ARPI Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 407.9 and section 1 of the CCIP Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8.

FCIC is amending the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 407) and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 407.2 and 7 CFR 457.2 to remove duplicative provisions. Specifically, FCIC is removing paragraph (d) from 407.2 and paragraph (d) from 457.2 and redesignating subsequent paragraphs in both parts. Both removed paragraphs included requirements and instructions on which policy remains active and which policy is void if duplicate policies are found. Provisions addressing duplicate policies were already included in 18(b) of the ARPI Basic Provisions and section 22(a) of the CCIP Basic Provisions. The duplicative language is unnecessary and therefore removed from 7 CFR 407.2 and 7 CFR 457.2.

FCIC is amending Subpart X—Interpretations of Statutory Provisions, Policy Provisions, and Procedures (7 CFR 400.765-768); Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations (7 CFR 407) by revising the ARPI Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 407.9; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising the CCIP Basic Provisions as shown in 7 CFR 457.8, to clarify what happens if an FCIC interpretation or final agency determination is not requested or followed during a dispute.

In accordance with Executive Order 14192, Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation, this rule reduces regulatory and administrative burdens during dispute resolution between policyholders and AIPs by clarifying FCIC's role and removing ambiguity about the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) (9 U.S.C. 10 and 11).

The Federal Crop Insurance Act requires FCIC to interpret Federal crop insurance policy provisions (7 U.S.C. 1506(r)). Subpart X establishes FCIC's requirements for the public to request such interpretations and FCIC's process for responding to such requests in the form of a “final agency determination” for codified provisions or an “FCIC interpretation” for non-codified provisions. These terms are defined in 7 CFR 400.765.

The “automatic nullification” rule contained in Subpart X exceeds the statutory authority provided in the Federal Crop Insurance Act and places FCIC in the role of overruling arbitration awards if either the policyholder or AIP believes that the arbitrator or judge did not adhere to FCIC's interpretation in their decision. While the Basic Provisions allow an aggrieved party to seek nullification of a failed arbitration, the FAA provides the sole statutory framework for vacating arbitration awards. The FAA authority is usurped, and finality of arbitration is compromised, when parties can use the policy interpretation process to nullify awards with the automatic nullification rule. Rescinding the “automatic nullification” rule reduces administrative and regulatory obstacles to policyholders and their AIPs in finalizing a dispute through the courts. Therefore, in 7 CFR 400.766 and 400.767, sections 20(a) and (c) of the CCIP Basic Provisions, and section 23(d) of the ARPI Basic Provisions, FCIC is revising the provisions so that arbitration awards can only be challenged in accordance with the FAA. In addition, FCIC is clarifying the authority of the arbitrator. An arbitrator does not have the authority to interpret the policy or FCIC procedure. Further, an arbitrator does not have the authority to disregard or fail to comply with an FCIC interpretation or final agency determination issued in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart X.

In addition, FCIC is adding a definition of “FAA” in the ARPI Basic Provisions and CCIP Basic Provisions and updating the ways to submit a request for a final agency determination and FCIC interpretations by revising the mailing address and deleting the facsimile number in 7 CFR 400.767.

FCIC is amending several Crop Provisions as described in the sections below. For specific changes that FCIC is making in more than one Crop Provision, the context and justification for the change is provided under a descriptive sub-heading for that change. Under each Crop Provision where the change appears, FCIC lists the descriptive sub-heading. For changes that FCIC is making in a single Crop Provision, the change is described only under its respective Crop Provision sub-heading.

FCIC is amending certain Crop Provisions to relocate contract change dates, end of insurance period (EOIP) dates, cancellation dates, and termination dates to the Special Provisions in cases where there are regional differences in insurance coverage across the country. The Special Provisions are the part of the policy that provide county-level policy provisions, compared to the Crop Provisions which are generalized for the crop anywhere it is grown and insured. These dates are already published in the Special Provisions for each crop and county where insurance is available. Maintaining a separate list of these dates in the regulations is duplicative and can be error-prone. Maintaining these dates only in the Special Provisions allows FCIC to be more responsive and efficient to regional changes in agronomic conditions, technology, or production practices that justify localized date changes specific to an insurable county. Special Provisions are located on the RMA website, and policyholders also receive the Special Provisions for their county with their policy. This change will make it easier for policyholders to quickly find relevant dates in the Special Provisions without having to sort through program dates that are irrelevant to their county.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.139, Fresh Market Tomato (Dollar Plan) Crop Insurance Provisions and 7 CFR 457.148, Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions to allow direct marketing.

This change removes barriers to crop insurance for specialty crop producers who directly market their crops. FCIC conducted a review of specialty crops to identify any crop insurance restrictions on producers' ability to engage in direct marketing. Restrictions were identified for two specialty crops, fresh market tomatoes and fresh market peppers, where the Crop Provisions prohibited insurance for these two commodities if producers sell them directly to consumers.

FCIC is revising the Crop Provisions to allow Special Provisions authorizing insurance in certain locations for fresh market tomatoes and peppers sold directly to consumers. This change allows FCIC to assess local market conditions to identify specific areas where insurance could be offered in the future for tomatoes and peppers sold for direct marketing.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.104, Cotton Crop Insurance Provisions, to move cancellation dates, termination dates, and EOIP dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above, and to incorporate a Special Provisions statement regarding quality adjustment into section 10 (Settlement of Claim) of the Crop Provisions. This rule does not change the quality adjustment or claims process that has been in place since the 2018 crop year, but rather, moves the quality adjustment calculation to the Crop Provisions.

Adverse weather conditions impacting cotton producers in the Southeast in 2015 and 2016 resulted in complaints that FCIC's cotton quality adjustment did not meet the needs of producers. This led to a request for FCIC to consider alternative methods for adjusting poor quality cotton, and in response, FCIC examined data and quality loss procedures in other existing policies with similar quality adjustment provisions to determine an appropriate change. Working with grower groups, FCIC considered alternatives and increased the 85 percent price threshold (as described in section 10(d)(1)-(3)) to 90 percent and removed the 85 percent deductible. FCIC implemented this change using Special Provisions for the 2018 crop year and this rule incorporates the change into the Crop Provisions, minimizing the need to include the information in multiple locations.

FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications in the Cotton Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.104):

• Removing the phrase “for determining indemnities” from the section heading for section 2. The section heading will now read “Insurance Guarantees, Coverage, Levels, and Prices.” The new section heading is more accurate because insurance guarantees, coverage levels, and prices are not exclusively used for determining indemnities. This change is also consistent with section headings of the same name in other Crop Provisions;

• Correcting the misspelling of the word “measures” in section 8(d); and

• Replacing the word “subsection” with “section” in section 10(c)(1)(iii).

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.109, Sugar Beet Crop Insurance Provisions to move the cancellation and termination dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above, and to make the following corrections and clarifications:

• Removing the definition of “crop year” from the Crop Provisions because it is duplicative of the same definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions;

• Correcting paragraph references in section 2 and 14(c); and

• Correcting the limit on adjusted production to apply to the applicable Actual Production History (APH) database when the early harvest adjustment option is elected by the policyholder. The early harvest adjustment has a cap (or limit) on the amount the yield may be increased that is designed to ensure that policyholders' APH guarantees are not inflated. Previously, section 18(b)(5) based the limit on the approved yield for the unit. For sugar beets, the unit is the insurable acreage of the sugar beets used to establish the production guarantee, premium, and indemnity. However, units are not the appropriate basis for the yield limit, because a single approved yield may not be calculated for a unit, which may contain multiple types and practices. The most appropriate methodology for establishing the limit is the approved yield from the applicable APH database for each insurable type and practice. FCIC previously issued a procedural correction revising the yield limit to use the applicable APH database. FCIC is revising the Crop Provisions to align with the procedural correction.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.125, Safflower Crop Insurance Provisions by moving the contract change date from December 31 to November 30 in section 3 to match other spring crops to improve administrative efficiency for AIPs, agents, and the FCIC.

As explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above, FCIC is moving cancellation and termination dates to the Special Provisions.

FCIC added an example immediately following section 11(b) in the Settlement of Claim section to show how an indemnity is calculated to be consistent with other Crop Provisions.

FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications in the Safflower Crop Insurance Provisions (7 CFR 457.125):

• Removing the definition of “nurse crop (companion crop)” in section 1 as this term is not used in the Crop Provisions;

• Replacing the phrase “agree in writing” in section 6(a) with the defined term “written agreement.” “Written agreement” is specifically defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions. The use of “agree in writing” was intended to mean that the producer must have a written agreement;

• Removing a duplicate listing of replanting payment factors from section 9(b). The replant payment factors are also included in the policy in the actuarial documents. Keeping the replanting payment factors in the actuarial documents, without duplicating the factors in the regulation, improves administrative efficiency and reduces errors in updating the payment factors in the future; and

• Removing section 11(d)(3)(ii) and renumbering subsequent paragraphs as there was a Special Provisions statement excluding this provision, making it obsolete. Upon removing 11(d)(3)(ii), that portion of the Special Provisions statement will also be removed.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.128, Guaranteed Production Plan of Fresh Market Tomato Crop Insurance Provisions to move the cancellation dates, termination dates, and the EOIP date to the Special Provisions along with extending the EOIP date for Tennessee, extending the cancellation and termination dates for South Carolina by approximately 45 days, and updating insurable types of tomatoes to include “grape” types.

As explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above, FCIC is moving the cancellation dates, termination dates, and the EOIP date to the Special Provisions. Upon moving these dates to the Special Provisions, FCIC is extending the EOIP date for Tennessee from September 20 to October 15 and extending the cancellation and termination dates for South Carolina by approximately 45 days. Extending insurance in Tennessee protects producers from hurricanes in late September and early October, when there is still a small portion of the liability remaining in the field. By revising the cancellation and termination dates for South Carolina, FCIC is effectively extending the sales period by approximately 45 days. This change aligns the sales period for South Carolina with neighboring counties in North Carolina, providing additional time for producers to purchase insurance, and reducing confusion for producers and AIPs who operate in both South Carolina and North Carolina.

FCIC is adding the “grape” type of tomatoes to the Crop Provisions. Adding the “grape” type of tomato to the Crop Provisions adds clarity to the policy because this type is already insurable through the Special Provisions.

FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications in the Fresh Market Tomato Production Guaranteed Plan Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.128):

• Clarifying the availability of optional units by establishing an exhaustive list of the criteria by which an optional unit may and may not be established in section 2(b); and

• Removing a duplicate listing of replanting payment factors from section 12(b). The replant payment factors are also included in the policy in the actuarial documents. Keeping the replanting payment factors in the actuarial documents, without duplicating them in the regulation, improves administrative efficiency and reduces errors in updating the factors in the future.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.137, Green Pea Crop Insurance Provisions, to move cancellation and termination dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above and to make the following corrections and clarifications:

• Clarifying the definition of “production guarantee (per acre)” to indicate the production guarantee per acre is specified in pounds; and

• Clarifying the availability of optional units by establishing an exhaustive list of the criteria by which an optional unit may and may not be established in section 2(b).

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.139, Fresh Market Tomato (Dollar Plan) Crop Insurance Provisions to allow the Special Provisions to provide insurance for production sold through direct marketing, as explained in the “Direct Marketing” paragraph above and moving the cancellation date and termination date to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above. FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications:

• Clarifying the availability of optional units by establishing an exhaustive list of the criteria by which an optional unit may or may not be established in section 2(b); and

• Correcting the policy location for the replanting payment amount to the actuarial documents, not the Special Provisions.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.148, Fresh Market Pepper Crop Insurance Provisions to facilitate crop insurance expansion, particularly to East Coast states, by moving cancellation dates and termination dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above, and adding a new contract change date reflective of the growing season in certain East Coast states. FCIC is also allowing the Special Provisions to provide insurance for production sold through direct marketing, as described in the “Direct Marketing” paragraph above.

This rule seeks to facilitate crop insurance expansion to additional states, particularly on the East Coast. FCIC is adding a new contract change date in the Crop Provisions and moving the termination dates and cancellation dates to the Special Provisions, where they will be updated on a county basis for future expansions. Previously, crop insurance for fresh market peppers was only available in southeastern states where peppers have a different growing season than in states further north. Producers, particularly in Northeastern states, have indicated that the previous program dates were a barrier to obtaining crop insurance.

FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications in the Fresh Market Pepper Crop Provisions (7 CFR 457.148):

• Clarifying the definition of “crop year” to encompass growing seasons in certain East Coast states. The crop year covers all planting periods shown in the Special Provisions for the county and is identified by the calendar year of harvest for the latest planting period;

• Clarifying the definition of “harvest” so that it only refers to picking peppers that are mature;

• Expanding the definition of “planting period” to include planting in certain East Coast states in the summer season;

• Clarifying the definition of “practical to replant” to show that for fresh market peppers, an AIP may consider crop marketing windows, in addition to the criteria established in the CCIP Basic Provisions, in their determination of whether the crop is practical to replant;

• Clarifying the availability of optional units by establishing an exhaustive list of the criteria by which an optional unit may or may not be established in section 2(b);

• Allowing the EOIP to be modified in the Special Provisions;

• Correcting the policy location for the replanting payment amount to the actuarial documents, not the Special Provisions; and

• Moving the percentage of production to be counted for catastrophic risk protection coverage to the actuarial documents.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.151, Forage Seeding Crop Insurance Provisions to move the cancellation and termination dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above. FCIC is also clarifying the definition of “crop year” to show that it is in lieu of the same definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is amending the Common Crop Insurance Regulations (7 CFR part 457) by revising 7 CFR 457.161, Canola and Rapeseed Crop Provisions to move the cancellation and termination dates to the Special Provisions, as explained in the “Deregulating Dates” paragraph above. FCIC is also making the following corrections and clarifications:

• Changing the phrase “in accordance with” to “by” in the definition of “canola” to show that the genus is “defined by” the Official U.S. Standards for Grain; and

• Removing a duplicate listing of replanting payment amounts from section 10(b). The replant payment amounts are also included in the policy in the actuarial documents. Keeping the replanting payment amounts in the actuarial documents, without duplicating them in the regulation, improves administrative efficiency and reduces errors in updating the amounts in the future.

Throughout this rule, FCIC is making several corrections and clarifications for plain language and adherence to the Government Printing Office Style Manual. FCIC is providing an overview of these corrections and clarifications here:

• Revising references to “the Corporation” and “Federal Crop Insurance Corporation” to “FCIC” as defined in 7 CFR part 400, the ARPI Basic Provisions, and the CCIP Basic Provisions;

• Reducing redundancy, eliminating potential conflicts, and clarifying definitions that appear in both the Basic Provisions and individual Crop Provisions, by removing duplicative definitions, or adding the phrases “in addition to” or “in lieu of” to applicable definitions within Crop Provisions;

• Clarifying which Basic Provisions apply by adding an introductory sentence preceding the Crop Provisions and updating the effective year within the introductory sentence to show the year to which the changes in the Crop Provisions apply;

• Removing the introductory sentence explaining the order of priority in individual Crop Provisions because it is duplicative of the CCIP Basic Provisions, which already include the priority order of policy provisions;

• To conform with the Government Publishing Office Style Manual:

○ Correcting the capitalization of “states” to “States”;

○ Changing the spelling of numbers to numerals;

○ Correcting “a” to “an” or vice versa preceding an acronym;

○ Correcting punctuation;

○ Removing parentheticals repeating a numerical percentage following a spelled out percentage;

• To improve clarity in writing for plain language:

○ Replacing “herein,” “therein,” and “thereof” with descriptive phrases;

○ Replacing “ e.g. ” with “for example”;

○ Replacing “in excess of” with “exceeding”;

○ Replacing “in compliance” with “complies”;

○ Removing unnecessary words and phrases, such as “contained in,” and “the provisions of” when referring to regulatory provisions by number;

• Updating crop years in examples with more current years;

• Clarifying the settlement of claim examples in Crop Provisions by clarifying where the example begins and ends, updating prices to be more reflective of current crop prices and potential indemnities, correcting the defined term “production guarantee (per acre)” as applicable, or clarifying which steps of the examples are not applicable;

• Correcting paragraph numbering in definitions;

• Correcting outdated statute references; and

• Removing duplicative provisions.

Prevented planting is a de facto coverage in all crop insurance policies. Increased coverage above the basic level, referred to as “buy-up” coverage, is an option that is provided administratively by RMA in annual notifications. Producers that elect buy-up coverage pay a slightly higher premium to qualify for an indemnity payment that is 5 percent more than the basic coverage. However, the buy-up coverage is mainly benefitting farmers in the Dakotas seeking to plant in the Prairie Pothole Region, where the majority of prevented planting crop insurance payments are made. This is no longer needed because Congress has a history of addressing wide-spread flooding through ad-hoc disaster assistance, such as the 2019 Supplemental bill that funded prevented planting “top-off” payments, providing an additional 10 to 15 percent to eligible producers who had already received prevented planting indemnities.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The exemption under section 553 for matters related to contracts extends to the regulatory analysis requirement for this rule.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) found this rule meets the criteria in 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the Congressional Review Act (CRA). The CRA, at 5 U.S.C. 808(2) allows an agency to make such regulations effective immediately if the agency finds there is good cause to do so. USDA has determined that such good cause exists here because the rule changes relate to matters of a contract. Postponing the effective date of the rule would result in a one-year delay in providing the benefits of the rule to American farmers and ranchers. Therefore, USDA is not required to delay the effective date for 60 days from the date of publication to allow for Congressional review. Accordingly, this rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register .

Therefore, this final rule is effective on November 30, 2025. Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14192 “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation” announced the Administration policy to significantly reduce the private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations to secure America's economic prosperity and national security and the highest possible quality of life for each citizen and to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people. In line with the Executive Order requirements, the Agency chose this regulatory approach to harmonize rules and procedures, maximize flexibility, and increase efficiency by alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.

The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant or economically significant. This rule has been designated as not significant and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required.

The environmental impacts of this final rule have been considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), and the USDA regulation for compliance with NEPA (7 CFR part 1b). As specified in 7 CFR parts 1b.3(f) and 1b.4(a)(3), FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect or an extraordinary circumstance exists. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect and no extraordinary circumstances exist. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this documents the programmatic environmental compliance finding of applicability and no extraordinary circumstances (FANEC).

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

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

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

In accordance with the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053; Expiration Date: 3/31/2026, 0563-0083; Expiration Date: 11/30/2026, and 0563-0055; Expiration Date: 11/30/25 (currently at OMB seeking approval to renew collection). No new information will be collected through this rule. All information has already been collected.

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

The title and number of the Assistance Listing, to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR parts 400, 407, and 457, effective for the 2026 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2025, and for the 2027 and succeeding crop years for all other crops, as follows:

On December 20, 2023, the FDIC adopted a final rule  1 revising the official sign and advertising regulations implementing section 18(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. 2

The final rule became effective on April 1, 2024, and required full compliance with the rule by January 1, 2025. Based upon feedback from IDIs and other industry participants, the FDIC delayed the compliance date for the amendments in subpart A of 12 CFR part 328 to May 1, 2025. 3 The delay was intended to provide additional time for IDIs to put in place processes and systems and make technological updates. In March 2025, the compliance date was further delayed as to the requirements in 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5. 4 This second delay recognized that the requirements of 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5, relating to signage requirements for digital deposit-taking channels and ATMs and like devices, continued to generate questions regarding implementation and had the potential to cause consumer confusion. The delay allowed the FDIC to consider proposing changes to these requirements, which it did on August 21, 2025. 5

Specifically, on August 21, 2025, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on a proposal that would amend the requirements of 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 to minimize identified implementation issues, reduce burden, and address potential consumer confusion. Given that the FDIC is considering changes to 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5, the approaching March 1, 2026, compliance deadline for the present requirements of 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 has created uncertainty and could impose unnecessary burden on IDIs. To address these concerns, the FDIC is delaying the compliance date for the requirements in 12 CFR 328.4 and 328.5 from March 1, 2026, to January 1, 2027. 6 This delayed compliance date is subject to any changes to these provisions made by any future rulemaking.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-12-10, Amendment 39-22082 (87 FR 45246, July 28, 2022) (AD 2022-12-10). AD 2022-12-10 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, except airplanes having Dassault modification M2091 embodied in production. AD 2022-12-10 required revising the existing AFM to provide emergency procedures for inconsistent or unreliable flight data, emergency and abnormal operations procedures for the GEN I/O internal module failure, and emergency procedures for additional information. AD 2022-12-10 also required revising the operator's existing FAA-approved MEL items for the multi-function probe heating, air data, and inertial reference systems. The FAA issued AD 2022-12-10 to address misleading data on display units, which could reduce safety margins and lead to increased pilot workload, possibly resulting in reduced controllability of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 6, 2025 (90 FR 37810). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0003R1, dated September 26, 2024 (EASA AD 2023-0003R1) (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 EASA superseded EASA AD 2021-0197, dated August 23, 2021 (which corresponds to AD 2022-12-10), with EASA AD 2022-0145, dated July 12, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0145). EASA AD 2022-0145 was issued to retain the requirements of EASA AD 2021-0197, exclude airplanes on which Dassault modification M2091 was embodied in production, and require airplane serial numbers (S/Ns) 402 and subsequent with the “EASy III—2nd CERT” or “EASy III—3rd CERT” standard to upgrade the avionics architecture to the “EASY III—4th CERT” standard (modification M2091).

EASA AD 2022-0145, in turn, was superseded by EASA AD 2023-0003, dated January 6, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0003). EASA AD 2023-0003 was issued to retain the requirements of EASA AD 2022-0145, exclude airplanes on which Dassault modification M2096 or M2097 was embodied in production, and require airplane S/Ns 2 through 400 inclusive to upgrade the avionics architecture to the “EASy II—5th CERT” standard (modification M2096 or M2097, as applicable).

Since EASA AD 2023-0003 was issued, Dassault developed modifications M2055 (for airplane S/Ns 2 through 400 inclusive) and M2059 (for airplane S/Ns 402 and subsequent) that upgrade the avionics architecture to the “EASy IV” standard and issued Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-600, dated November 7, 2022; Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-601, April 24, 2023; and Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-602, June 3, 2023; as applicable, to provide in-service modification instructions. EASA AD 2023-0003 was subsequently revised by EASA AD 2023-0003R1 to exclude airplanes on which modifications M2055 or M2059 were embodied in production and allow incorporation of those modifications in service as an optional method of compliance for modifications M2091, M2096, or M2097, as applicable.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-12-10 and remove from the applicability airplanes on which Dassault modification M2055, M2059, M2096, or M2097 were embodied in production. The FAA also proposed to require modification of the avionics system and related revisions to the existing AFM and MEL, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0003R1. 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-2025-1729.

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

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 2023-0003R1, which specifies revising the (1) existing AFM to provide emergency procedures for inconsistent or unreliable flight data and emergency and abnormal operations procedures for the GEN I/O internal module failure; (2) existing FAA-approved MEL items for the multi-function probe heating, air data, and inertial reference systems and modular avionic unit (MAU) #1B; and (3) operational suitability manual—flight crew (OSM-FC). This material also specifies procedures for modifying the avionics system and incorporating related AFM and MEL revisions.

This material also describes optional procedures for modifying the avionics architecture to the “EASy IV” standard, revising the existing AFM to incorporate revision 6 or revision 25, as applicable, and revising the existing FAA-approved MEL to incorporate revision 16. Accomplishing the optional modification and AFM revision is an acceptable method of compliance for the applicable modification that upgrades the avionics architecture to “EASy III—4th CERT” or “EASy II—5th CERT” and related AFM revision. In addition, accomplishing the optional MEL revision is an acceptable method of compliance for the corresponding revisions to MEL items for the multi-function probe heating, air data, and inertial reference systems and MAU #1B.

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 preamble to AD 2022-12-10 specifies that the FAA considers that AD “interim action” and that the FAA might consider further rulemaking if a final action is identified. The manufacturer has since developed modifications ( i.e., software upgrades) that fix a weak point in the avionics architecture to address the unsafe condition. The FAA has determined that the modifications and related AFM and MEL revisions should be required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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 all Airbus SAS Model A350-941 and -1041 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2025 (90 FR 21702). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2025-0093, dated April 24, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0093) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI reports instances of mechanical noises originating from the NLG shock absorber during ground maneuvers. Further analysis traced these noises to higher than expected friction between the lower bearing carrier (LBC) and the main fitting of the sliding tube. This friction may cause deformation of the LBC's anti-rotation tabs, leading to relative movement between the LBC and the main fitting. As a result, wear on the corrosion protection coating of the main fitting may occur due to subsequent movement of the retainer ring positioned between these components, which could lead to corrosion of the NLG main fitting.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections ( i.e., steering checks) of the NLG shock absorber and applicable on-condition actions and limit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions, as specified in EASA AD 2025-0093. The FAA is issuing this AD to address higher than expected friction on the NLG shock absorber LBC, which could result in deformation of the LBC's anti-rotation tabs and consequent corrosion of the NLG main fitting. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure of the NLG, which may result in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0912.

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 Delta Air Lines (Delta). The following presents those comments and the FAA's responses.

Delta requested the FAA clarify whether modifications performed using Liebherr Service Bulletin 6407A-32-01, dated May 27, 2025, and any future service bulletin modifications may be used as terminating action for the requirements of the proposed AD. Delta noted that the Liebherr service bulletin provides instructions for modifying certain affected parts to not affected parts, which effectively changes a Group 1 or 3 airplane to a Group 4 airplane. Delta noted that EASA AD 2025-0093 specifies Group 4 airplanes are only subject to the parts prohibition requirement. Delta asserted that the intent of the affected part, not affected part, and group definitions is to allow retrofit of an airplane to become a Group 4 airplane once a modification is developed, such as the one in the Liebherr service bulletin. Delta also asked whether other methods, such as other Airbus service bulletins or replacement of a NLG assembly with one that does not have affected parts installed, could similarly be used to convert a Groups 1 through 3 airplane to a Group 4 airplane.

The FAA acknowledges that if an “Affected part” is replaced with a “Not affected part,” then the airplane would become a Group 4 airplane per the definitions in EASA AD 2025-0093 and the repetitive checks and reporting would no longer need to be accomplished for that airplane. However, the FAA has not received or reviewed Liebherr Service Bulletin 6407A-32-01 to determine if accomplishing the modification in that service bulletin is acceptable as a terminating action for the repetitive checks and reporting required by this AD. Further, the FAA has not received, reviewed, or approved any other service information that would potentially provide a terminating action. Therefore, the FAA declines to revise this AD to allow the Liebherr service bulletin as a terminating action. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, an operator may propose terminating action as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) for the requirements of this AD. If sufficient substantiating data is provided and an equivalent level of safety is demonstrated, the FAA may approve such AMOC requests to allow for termination of the required actions in this AD. The FAA has not changed the AD in response to this comment.

Delta requested the FAA add a paragraph to the proposed AD stating that the reporting requirement specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2025-0093 is not adopted. Delta reasoned that reporting is not necessary since Airbus does not need to collect additional data to determine the root cause or final solution because EASA AD 2025-0093 already identifies a final solution in the “Not affected part” definition; and that such parts can be installed in service using Liebherr Service Bulletin 6407A-32-01, dated May 27, 2025. Delta also reasoned reporting is not necessary because there is no list of bad serial numbers, so Airbus does not need to maintain a bad parts pool. Delta concluded that, while Airbus may want operators to continue reporting to assist with tracking spare parts, the reporting requirement does not appear to contribute to an enhanced level of safety.

The FAA disagrees with removing the reporting requirement from this AD. The FAA notes that reporting is required only if there is a discrepancy as specified in paragraph (5) of EASA AD 2025-0093. Although the EASA AD identifies “not affected” parts, the EASA AD does not indicate that a final fix or permanent solution has been developed. Further, the FAA has received no information indicating that Airbus has established a terminating action at this time. Therefore, the FAA considers the reporting requirement necessary to continue gathering data relevant to the unsafe condition. However, the FAA has added a new paragraph (h)(4) to this AD to provide a 30-day grace period for operators who may have accomplished the steering check before the effective date of the AD.

Delta requested the FAA clarify which portions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A32P031-24, Revision 04, dated March 11, 2025, are required for compliance with the proposed AD. Delta noted the AOT indicates section 5.6, including the flowchart, is labeled as required for compliance (RC). Delta also noted EASA AD 2025-0093 specifies accomplishing a steering check of the affected part and applicable corrective actions in accordance with the instructions of the AOT. Delta interprets this to mean that only the portions of the AOT related to the steering check and corrective actions are required. Delta expressed concern with the first question in the flowchart, which asks whether the NLG secondary seal was activated before installation. Delta stated this question cannot reliably be answered because the mechanic inspecting the NLG will have no knowledge, and there might be no maintenance record, of why the seal was changed. Delta asserted that, if the flowchart is required, the AOT should include a procedure for this question to determine why the seal was changed. Delta also expressed concern with the instruction in the flowchart to replace the NLG shock absorber dynamic seals per a certain maintenance plan task within the compliance time of the AOT. Delta asserted that the AOT does not specify the compliance time for this action. Delta stated that if the flowchart is RC, then the proposed AD should be revised to include a procedure to determine why the secondary seal was activated and a compliance time for replacement of the NLG shock absorber dynamic seals.

The FAA notes that the flowchart in section 5.6 of the AOT is RC. Paragraph (g) of this AD mandates compliance with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, the EASA AD, which in turn references the AOT. Therefore, all sections of the AOT that are labeled as RC, including the flowchart in section 5.6, are required for compliance with this AD.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern about assessing the cause of secondary seal activation but disagrees with revising this AD to add a procedure to address it. The FAA considers it reasonable to expect operators to determine, through maintenance record review, whether the activation was due to primary seal leakage or another reason. The FAA notes that operators are required to maintain adequate records (per 14 CFR 91.417) to make such determinations and apply the flowchart accordingly.

Regarding the compliance time in the flowchart related to replacement of the NLG shock absorber dynamic seals, the compliance times specified in this AD take precedence. Specifically, the dynamic seal replacement must be completed within the compliance time established for the initial steering check. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

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 2025-0093, which specifies procedures for repetitive inspections ( i.e., steering checks) for relative movement between the LBC and the main fitting and applicable on-condition actions. The on-condition actions include activating the secondary seal, inspecting and applying torque to the nose landing gear seal changeover valve, inspecting the ring groove for corrosion, and repairing any corrosion. EASA AD 2025-0093 also specifies reporting the results of each check where a discrepancy was identified to the manufacturer and limits the installation of affected parts, for airplanes with an affected part installed, unless the steering check has been completed. For airplanes that do not have an affected part installed, EASA AD 2025-0093 prohibits installing an affected 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.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 33 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 on-condition actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 717-200 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2025 (90 FR 17746). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a nose landing gear-up landing caused by the failure of the upper lock link assembly. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracking of the upper lock link assembly and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a failure of the upper lock link assembly caused by non-conforming surface roughness, due to tool marks on the surface. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a failure of the nose landing gear (NLG) to fully extend during landing or cause the nose gear to remain retracted while the main gear deploys. Additionally, it could restrict ground maneuverability, increasing the risk of a runway excursion.

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

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta) and an anonymous commenter. The following presents those comments and the FAA's response.

Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to exclude from the overhaul requirement upper lock link assemblies manufactured after a specific date. Delta stated that Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-32A0043 RB, dated February 12, 2025, specifies overhauling all upper lock link assemblies, including newly manufactured parts. Delta claimed that overhaul of new parts places a significant burden on operators, particularly those relying on third-party vendors for overhaul services. Delta also expressed concern that this action implies newly manufactured parts are still being manufactured and delivered with the known defect. However, if the part defect has been addressed in production, Delta stated new parts produced after a specific date determined by the manufacturer should be exempted from the overhaul requirement.

The FAA acknowledges the request. After consultation with the parts manufacturer, the FAA has determined that upper lock link assemblies manufactured after December 31, 2001, are serviceable upper lock link assemblies and therefore should be exempt from the overhaul requirement. Accordingly, the FAA has added paragraphs (h)(2) and (3) of this AD to exclude airplanes with an upper lock link assembly manufactured after December 31, 2001, from the requirements of this AD.

Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to expand the definition of a serviceable upper lock link assembly to include parts that were manufactured after a specific date determined by the manufacturer. As discussed in the previous comment, Delta stated that the part defect may have been addressed in production, and these new parts should be included in the definition of a serviceable upper lock link assembly. Delta stated that note (a) of table 1 defines a serviceable part solely as one that has been overhauled in accordance with a certain overhaul manual.

The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided in the previous comment. Accordingly, the FAA has added paragraph (h)(4) to include upper lock link assemblies manufactured after December 31, 2001, in the definition of a serviceable upper lock link assembly.

Delta noted that table 1, condition 1 of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-32A0043 RB, dated February 12, 2025, specifies installing a serviceable upper lock link assembly ( i.e., one that has been overhauled in accordance with a certain overhaul manual) before further flight if any crack is found as a result of the eddy current high frequency (ETHF) inspection. Delta requested the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to provide an option to table 1, condition 1 (in case a crack is found) that instead allows installation of an upper lock link assembly that has not been overhauled in accordance with a certain overhaul manual but has complied with the initial ETHF inspection. Delta suggested that an upper lock link assembly that has been inspected by the ETHF inspection should be considered acceptable for installation because it is being tracked to comply with the repetitive inspection interval every 4,800 flight cycles. Delta asserted that this approach would maintain an equivalent level of safety while offering operators greater flexibility.

The FAA infers that Delta is requesting that the FAA revise the AD to allow installation of an upper lock link assembly that has not been overhauled in accordance with the overhaul manual referenced in the requirements bulletin but on which the ETHF inspection has been accomplished with no crack found. The FAA agrees with this request. The FAA has determined that, in this case, the affected upper lock link assembly is being tracked and maintained in accordance with the required repetitive ETHF inspection interval, and that this approach maintains an equivalent level of safety. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard because installation of a non-overhauled part is already acceptable under table 1, condition 2, option 1 of the requirements bulletin.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to require more frequent inspections, especially for aircraft with high cycle counts. The commenter asserted that the proposed inspection requirements do not address the serious safety risk of the nose gear-up landing incident that prompted the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with reducing the repetitive inspection interval. The safety concern of this AD is not related to the number of airplane cycles. The root cause of the upper lock link assembly failure was non-conforming surface roughness from tool marks. The referenced service information in this AD outlines procedures for repetitive ETHF inspections of both the top and bottom surfaces of the upper lock link assembly to detect any cracks and specifies replacement of any cracked assemblies with serviceable ones. The repetitive inspection interval of 4,800 cycles was calculated by crack growth analysis and was correlated to the striation count data in the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) lab report. The required inspection interval allows for two inspection opportunities between crack detectability and instability. The FAA did not change this AD in response to this comment.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to require immediate replacement of all upper lock link assemblies manufactured during the same production period as the failed part identified in the related NTSB report, rather than waiting for cracks to become visible during routine inspections.

The FAA disagrees with the request. As discussed in its response to the previous comment, the FAA has determined that accomplishing the repetitive inspections within the required inspection interval provides an acceptable level of safety. Replacement of the upper lock link assemblies with a serviceable upper lock link assembly terminates the repetitive inspections. The FAA notes that a serviceable upper lock link assembly is defined in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-32A0043 RB, dated February 12, 2025, except as specified in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 717-32A0043 RB, dated February 12, 2025. This material specifies procedures for repetitive ETHF inspections of the top and bottom surfaces of the upper lock link assembly for any crack, and replacement of any cracked upper lock link assembly with a serviceable upper lock link assembly. This material also specifies that replacement of the upper lock link assembly terminates the repetitive inspections.

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 117 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 replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these replacements:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-15-06, Amendment 39-22126 (87 FR 47334, August 3, 2022) (AD 2022-15-06). AD 2022-15-06 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2024 (89 FR 78827). The NPRM was prompted by the determination that connectors that were not identified in AD 2022-15-06 are affected and by the development of a replacement action to address the unsafe condition, which would terminate the existing actions. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions specified in AD 2022-15-06 and require those actions for additional connectors. The NPRM also proposed to require determining if affected transorb modules are installed, replacing or testing affected transorb modules, and applicable on-condition actions. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The NPRM was prompted by high electrical resistance within the gust suppression sensor (GSS) transorb modules due to corrosion on the transorb threads and insufficient engagement of the anti-rotation teeth. The FAA is issuing this AD to address high electrical resistance in both transorb modules, which can result in two actuator control electronics (ACEs) being exposed to damaging lightning transient voltages in excess of the qualification levels, potentially inducing erroneous or oscillatory outputs to flight control surfaces. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and Cathay Pacific, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from five commenters, including American Airlines, Boeing, FedEx Express, and United Airlines (United). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Boeing requested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be revised to limit the applicability to the airplanes affected by Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0125 RB, dated February 3, 2023. Boeing stated that if the AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes (including the airplanes after line number 1726-the airplanes that will have this change already incorporated in production), then the airplanes delivered after the effective date of this AD would need to document that these AD actions were incorporated in production in an AD Letter (ADL), stating that the airplane is not affected by the AD.

The FAA disagrees with Boeing's request that paragraph (c) of this AD be revised because the transorbs are rotable and these parts could later be installed on airplanes that were initially delivered with acceptable parts, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the unsafe condition. All airplanes are subject to the parts installation prohibition specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, which does not allow affected parts to be installed as of the effective date of the AD.

The FAA notes that airplanes produced after the effective date of this AD do not need to document that the actions in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0125 RB, dated February 3, 2023, were done because paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD only apply to airplanes produced on or before the effective date of this AD. Additionally, the FAA has revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to limit those requirements to airplanes produced on or before the effective date of this AD since airplanes produced after the effective date of this AD will not be delivered with the affected transorb modules or connectors.

FedEx Express requested that the FAA revise paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD to allow continued flight with the GSS connectors stowed per paragraphs (g) and (h) of the proposed AD, as an optional action. The commenter stated that the reactivation in paragraph (i)(2) of the proposed AD does not appear to lend any effort towards airworthiness of the aircraft outside of passenger comfort. Additionally, the commenter noted that such a system is not a requirement of 14 CFR part 25 and therefore expenditure of valuable time and resources on a system not appreciably utilized by a cargo carrier would seem pointless.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's request. The purpose of this AD is to restore the affected fleet to an acceptable level of safety. The FAA is issuing this AD to address high electrical resistance in both transorb modules, which can result in two actuator control electronics (ACEs) being exposed to damaging lightning transient voltages in excess of the qualification levels, potentially inducing erroneous or oscillatory outputs to flight control surfaces and could result in loss of control of the airplane. Allowing the connectors to be disconnected long-term may not address the unsafe condition in the affected fleet, as an operator may inadvertently reconnect the affected connectors in the future. Therefore, the replacement of affected connectors must be done to address the unsafe condition. However, any person may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. This AD has not been changed regarding this request.

Boeing requested that the FAA remove paragraph (h) of the proposed AD, update paragraph (g) of the proposed AD by referring to bundle/connector W6313/D02098P, and remove references to connector D02099P from “Actions Since AD-2022-15-06 Was Issued” in the NPRM. Boeing suggested some revised wording for paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to account for additional wire to bundles/connector part numbers that are present on some airplanes. Boeing stated paragraph (h) of the proposed AD could be misleading to operators as it does not highlight that the difference in the bundle and connector callouts are line number dependent. In addition, Boeing stated the connectors called out in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD are incorrect and reference two disconnect points on the same wire bundle. Boeing recommended that connector D02099P not be referenced as a disconnect point in the NPRM.

United requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow for disconnecting one of the connectors rather than the referenced “W6313/D02098P and W7314/D02099P,” which would require operators to unnecessarily disconnect both. United stated that the connectors are in the same wiring circuit so disconnecting either connector D02098P or D02099P would effectively deactivate the upper gust suppression transducer circuit. United noted it has disconnected, capped, and stowed connector D02099P and connector D02098P remains connected for these aircraft as allowed in AMOC letter 783-22-11124, dated January 17, 2023.

American Airlines requested that the FAA change references to wire bundles/connectors from “W6313/D02098P and W7314/D02099P” to “W6313/D02098P or W7314/D02099P,” as disconnecting either from the transorb module sufficiently complies with the level of safety required by the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees with rewording paragraph (h) of this AD to address the two disconnect points of the wire bundles being referenced as “W6313/D02098P and W7314/D02099P” to “W6313/D02098P or W7314/D02099P” to alleviate confusion of referencing disconnecting both from the transorb module; the disconnection of either bundle/connector provides an equivalent level of safety. Paragraph (h) of this AD has been updated to the reference above.

The FAA disagrees with removing paragraph (h) of this AD and updating paragraph (g) of this AD because either bundles/connectors W6313/D02098P or W7314/D02099P can be disconnected to address the unsafe condition. This AD has not been changed to remove the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Regarding the request to revise the wording in paragraph (g) of this AD, the FAA agrees to clarify. AMOC letter 783-22-11124, dated January 17, 2023, allows operators to use the wording suggested by Boeing. Paragraph (l)(4) of this AD allows operators to use AMOCs previously approved for AD 2022-15-06 for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD. Therefore, no change to this AD is necessary.

Regarding the request to revise “Actions Since AD-2022-15-06 Was Issued” in the NPRM, that language is not restated in this final rule; however, the FAA acknowledges that the text should have stated “disconnect the connectors and cap and stow the wires to bundles/connectors W6313/D02098P or W7314/D02099P.”

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

The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-27A0125 RB, dated February 3, 2023. This material specifies procedures for replacing affected transorb modules with new or serviceable transorb modules or testing affected transorb modules and accomplishing applicable on-condition actions. The on-condition actions include part marking any module that meets certain specifications or replacing any modules that do not meet the specifications.

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 312 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 actions that would be required based on the results of the testing. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2016-14-03, Amendment 39-18584 (81 FR 44496, July 8, 2016) (AD 2016-14-03). AD 2016-14-03 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2016-14-03 required reinforcing the forward pressure bulkhead at a certain stringer on both the left-hand and right-hand sides and doing related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2016-14-03 to prevent fatigue cracking of the forward pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2025 (90 FR 13848). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0147R1, dated August 7, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0147R1) (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 after EASA AD 2014-0209 was issued, several findings of cracks were reported in service during application of Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) tasks 532166 and 533186. As a result of these findings, Airbus has developed different thresholds and inspection requirements compared to those specified in ALI tasks 532166 and 533186 and requires those inspections until a modification is done.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2016-14-03. The FAA also proposed to add repetitive inspections of structure at a certain frame and applicable corrective actions, provide a terminating action for the repetitive inspections, and revise the applicability by removing airplanes and adding certain airplane models, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0147R1. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these airplane products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0479.

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

The FAA received additional comments from American Airlines (American), Delta Air Lines (Delta), and ProTech Aero Services Limited (ProTech). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

ProTech requested the FAA confirm that the proposed AD would allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material specified in EASA AD 2024-0147R1, as acceptable for compliance with the AD requirements.

This AD does allow the use of later-approved revisions of the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0147R1 as acceptable for compliance with the required actions. This AD adopts the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2024-0147R1, which includes the current version of the referenced material as well as later approved revisions.

Delta requested the FAA confirm that accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372, dated May 15, 2018, instead of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 03, dated May 7, 2015, suffices for taking credit for paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2024-0147R1. If the FAA agrees, then Delta requested the FAA add a new exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specify, where paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 states “in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268,” this AD considers Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372 as acceptable for compliance. Delta requested the new exception because paragraph (4) of the EASA AD 2024-0147R1 does not mention Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372, and the FAA's NPRM does not address Delta's concern. Delta stated it received an acceptable method of compliance (AMOC) to FAA AD 2016-14-03 (via AMOC Letter No. AIR-676-18-307, dated July 20, 2018) that allowed use of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372 instead of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268 and would like to take credit for previous compliance actions for its applicable airplanes.

The FAA partially agrees. The FAA agrees that, for certain airplane serial numbers, the modification specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 may be accomplished using the original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372, dated May 15, 2018, or later approved revisions, but disagrees that an exception is needed to provide credit for accomplishing the modification using the original issue of that service bulletin before the effective date of this AD. EASA AD 2024-0147R1 defines “the applicable modification SB” as Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, Revision 01, or Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372, as applicable to the manufacturer serial number. Since no revision number is cited for Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1372 in the definition, this means operators may use any revision of the service bulletin specified in the “Ref. Publications” paragraph of the EASA AD, as applicable, to accomplish the modification. However, paragraph (4) of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 is necessary to provide credit for any modification done before the effective date of this AD using the original issue of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1268, dated January 8, 2013, because the definition only cites Revision 01 of that service bulletin. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

The FAA clarifies that AMOCs approved previously for AD 2016-14-03 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 that are required by paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA has revised paragraph (i) of this AD accordingly.

American requested the FAA revise the proposed AD to allow use of the correct part numbers as an AMOC to certain part numbers specified in Figure A-GBAAG—Sheet 02 of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1383, dated March 5, 2019. American stated that, while incorporating changes found in Airbus Service Bulletin Information Transmission (SBIT) 19-0038, Revision 03, dated February 10, 2025, it found an error in the figure, and Airbus confirmed that certain part numbers in the tables and instructions for COMPD07 of subtasks 531383-420-202-001 and 531383-420-204-001 should be corrected.

The FAA agrees there is an error in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1383, dated March 5, 2019, but no change to this AD is necessary. The FAA reviewed the service bulletin and determined that Figure A-GBAAG Sheet 02 is not required for compliance. Subtasks 531383-420-202-001 and 531383-420-204-001 provide procedures to wet install fasteners in accordance with Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 51-42-00, but they only reference the figure and an airplane maintenance manual (AMM) task for additional information. Since the service bulletin does not specify that the fastener installation must be done in accordance with the figure, operators are not required to use the part numbers identified in the figure. Operators may instead use the correct part numbers identified in Airbus Message 81581889/005, Discrepancy in Figure A-GBAAG Sheet 02, dated April 24, 2025, to comply with the requirements of this AD. Further, Airbus's response to American indicated the part numbers would be corrected in a later revision of the service bulletin, which may be used for compliance according to the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2024-0147R1. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

Delta requested the FAA revise the exception in paragraph (h)(4) of the proposed AD by changing “herein” to “therein.” Delta stated paragraph (6) of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 uses “herein” to specify the compliance times for repair instructions provided by Airbus based on inspection findings after accomplishing ALI tasks 532166 and 533186. Delta believes “herein” is a typographical error because the EASA AD does not mention any compliance times for the ALI tasks inspection findings. Delta stated that repair instructions and compliance times as a result of the ALI inspection findings should be specified in the appropriate Airbus Repair Design Approval Forms (RDAFs).

The FAA does not agree that usage of “herein” in EASA AD 2024-0147R1 and paragraph (h)(4) of this AD is a typographical error. Paragraph (6) of the EASA AD applies to airplanes that have been inspected per ALI task 532166 and/or 533186 and repaired using Airbus approved instructions. The FAA clarifies that, for these airplanes, paragraph (6) of the EASA AD specifies accomplishing the repetitive inspections of each repaired hole in accordance with the applicable Airbus approved instructions within the compliance time “herein,” where herein refers to table 1 of the EASA AD for the applicable inspection compliance times. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

Delta requested the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to allow the compliance time in table 1 of EASA AD 2024-0147R1 to be calculated based on accomplishment of ALI task 532166-01-1 instead of ALI task 532166-02-1. Delta noted that ALI task 532166-02-1 states the task is an alternative to ALI task 532166-01-1, and that it accomplishes ALI task 532166-01-1 instead of ALI task 532166-02-1. Since Airbus has stipulated that the task is alternative, Delta therefore concluded that the compliance time may also be calculated using ALI task 532166-01-1 instead of ALI task 532166-02-1.

The FAA does not agree with the request. EASA AD 2024-0147R1 does not list ALI task 532166-01-1 as an alternate inspection task in Table 1—Initial Inspection. Further, ALI task 532166-02-1 is a special detailed inspection (rototest), while ALI task 532166-01-1 is a visual inspection. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0147R1, which specifies procedures for repetitive inspections for cracking of the airplane structure at frame (FR) 35 and stringer (STGR) 30 on the left-hand and right-hand sides for Airbus SAS Model A318, Model A319, and Model A320 airplanes; and at FR 35.8 and STGR 30 on the left-hand and right-hand sides for Airbus SAS Model A321 airplanes. EASA AD 2024-0147R1 also specifies obtaining and following instructions for crack repair. EASA AD 2024-0147R1 specifies that accomplishment of that inspection on an airplane terminates ALI tasks 532166 and task 533186 requirements.

EASA AD 2024-0147R1 also specifies procedures for modifying the forward pressure bulkhead at the frame coupling on the left-hand and right-hand sides of FR 35 and STGR 30, including applicable related investigative and corrective actions, for Airbus SAS Model A318, Model A319, and Model A320 airplanes; and at FR 35.8 and STGR 30 for Airbus SAS Model A321 airplanes. EASA AD 2024-0147R1 specifies that this modification constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections for that airplane.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,922 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates that it would take up to 21 work-hours per product to comply with the retained actions from AD 2016-14-03. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, FAA estimates the cost for U.S. operators is up to $3,430,770, or up to $1,785 per product.

The FAA estimates that it would take up to 11 work-hours per product to comply with the new proposed actions. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, FAA estimates the cost for U.S. operators is up to $1,797,070, or up to $935 per product.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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 to supersede AD 2018-26-03, Amendment 39-19533 (83 FR 66612, December 27, 2018) (AD 2018-26-03). AD 2018-26-03 applied to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 series airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on March 31, 2025 (90 FR 14213). The NPRM was prompted by reports of uncommanded movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats and the determination that additional seats are affected by the unsafe condition. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2018-26-03 and add an inspection for previously omitted part numbers. The FAA is issuing this AD to address uncommanded movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seat, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International and ProTech Aero Services Limited who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA also received comments from Boeing, Delta Air Lines (Delta), and an anonymous commenter. The following presents those comments and the FAA's response.

Delta requested the FAA revise paragraph (m) of the proposed AD to clarify that it applies to an Ipeco Captain's or First Officer's seat currently installed on an airplane. Delta stated that paragraph (m) of the proposed AD could be interpreted as applying to all seats currently installed on an airplane, or seats that were previously modified as required by AD 2018-26-03.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's rationale and has revised paragraph (m) of this AD to specify the paragraph applies to seats installed on an airplane.

Boeing requested the FAA revise paragraph (m) of this AD to state that, if airplane records show an Ipeco Captain's or First Officer's seat meets either one of two conditions for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308 in table 1 to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD, then the actions in paragraphs (g) and (h), as applicable, of the proposed AD are not required for that seat; and if the records show that a seat meets either one of two conditions for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309 in table 1 to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD, then the actions in paragraphs (j) and (k), as applicable, of the proposed AD are not required for that seat. Boeing stated this change would clarify that accomplishment of either Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308 or 757-25-0309 alone does not alleviate both adverse conditions of the seats, and that actions in both service bulletins are necessary. Boeing also stated that one row for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308 must be completed for the HMS issue to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (j) of the proposed AD, and one row must be completed for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309 to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (h) and (k) of the proposed AD.

The FAA agrees with the intent of the commenter's request and has revised paragraph (m) of this AD to match the language the FAA adopted in other ADs that address the same unsafe condition on other Boeing airplane models. Paragraph (m) of this AD states, in part, if airplane records show a seat installed on an airplane meets the conditions in any of the three rows for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308 in table 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD, then the actions in paragraphs (g) and (j), as applicable, of this AD are not required for that seat; and if the airplane records show a seat installed on an airplane meets the conditions in any of the three rows for Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309 in table 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD, then the actions specified in paragraphs (j) and (k), as applicable, of this AD are not required for that seat.

Boeing and Delta requested that the FAA correct three references to service bulletin number “777-25-0309” in table 1 to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. The commenters stated the correct reference is Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309.

The FAA agrees and has revised table 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD accordingly.

Delta requested that the FAA add Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-16, Issue 4, dated September 11, 2017; and Issue 5, dated April 29, 2020, to table 1 to paragraph (m) of the proposed AD. Delta stated that these service bulletins embody the HMS inspection and overhaul of the Captain's and First Officer's seats. Delta noted that, under the proposed table, compliance is acceptable ( i.e., the actions specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (j), and (k) of the proposed AD are not required) if actions are done in accordance with Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018, and additional actions are done in accordance with Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-15, Issue 4, dated February 16, 2018; Issue 5, dated April 29, 2020; or Issue 6, dated November 1, 2021, for Ipeco part number (P/N) 3A258-0007-01-1 or 3A258-0008-01-1 with horizontal actuator Artus P/N AD8650503 at “Amendment C” or later. Delta also noted that Revision 1 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, and Revision 2, dated June 12, 2023, allow accomplishment of Issue 4 of Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-16 for Ipeco P/N 3A258-0007-01-1 or 3A258-0008-01-1. Delta stated that accomplishing Issue 4, 5, or 6 of Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-15 triggers repetitive inspections of the seats but accomplishing Issue 4 or 5 of Ipeco Service Bulletin 258-25-16 terminates those repetitive inspections.

The FAA agrees with the commenter's request for the reasons provided above. Accordingly, the FAA has included the additional service information in table 1 to paragraph (m) of this AD.

An anonymous commenter stated the proposed AD should explicitly remind operators of the strong whistleblower protections with anti-retaliatory safeguards for mechanics, flightcrews, and inspectors who report recurring or unresolved seat movement issues.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 42121) prohibits discrimination against employees of the U.S. air carrier industry and U.S. manufacturers who report information related to air carrier safety. Employees of U.S. air carriers and U.S. aircraft/component manufacturers, their contractors, and their sub-contractors are covered under the AIR-21 Whistleblower Protection Program. More information about this program is available at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/whistleblower. Other individuals may a file a complaint or safety report using the FAA Hotline. More information about this program is available at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/aae/programs_services/faa_hotlines. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA analyze whether additional costs or delays from the proposed AD would disproportionately affect small operators, regional airlines, or routes serving low-income or rural communities. The commenter stated that technical support or grants may be needed to avoid reducing affordable and equitable access to air service.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA recognizes that this AD imposes certain operational costs on operators, and that operators have an obligation to maintain their airplanes in airworthy condition. However, the FAA does not provide economic mitigation to small or large operators. Under certain circumstances, an airplane manufacturer might provide warranty coverage, but the FAA does not have the authority to require manufacturers to do so. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA require operators to report anonymized data on all incidents of uncommanded seat movement, repairs performed, and root causes, with public summaries released regularly. The commenter stated that this transparency would build trust and allow independent safety and labor advocates to monitor implementation.

The FAA agrees. The holder of a type certificate, parts manufacturer approval (PMA), or technical standard order (TSO) authorization is required, under 14 CFR 21.3, to report any failure, malfunction, or defect in any product or article manufactured by it that has resulted in occurrences, as provided in § 21.3(c). These reports can be submitted to the service difficulty reporting (SDR) system at sdrs.faa.gov, which is accessible to the public. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to require that any new or retrofitted seat meet or exceed the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements for disabled passengers and crew members.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The requirements of this AD address uncommanded movement of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, which could lead to reduced controllability of the airplane. Therefore, this AD does not affect disabled passengers or cabin crewmembers. If a modification to a seat is needed to accommodate a disabled flightcrew member, and the modification affects compliance with this AD, an operator may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this AD. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested the FAA confirm that the proposed compliance time would not result in overburdening maintenance staff, forced overtime, or flight cancellations. The commenter stated that rushed or under-resourced implementation of an AD risks maintenance errors and fatigue.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered the recommendations of the manufacturer, the urgency associated with the subject unsafe condition, the availability of required parts, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required modification within a period of time that corresponds to the normal scheduled maintenance for most affected operators. In consideration of these items, the FAA has determined that the compliance time required by this AD will ensure an acceptable level of safety. However, under the provisions of paragraph (n) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the new compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA require meaningful input from frontline mechanics, labor unions, flightcrew representatives, and disability rights groups before finalizing compliance plans or altering seat design standards.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. The FAA provides industry stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process by providing notice in the Federal Register . Before issuing the final rule, the FAA considers all comments received and determines whether air safety requires incorporating any requested changes or adopting the AD as proposed. No change to the AD is necessary in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to clarify the environmental impact of seat replacement or repairs, including discarded parts and whether materials are reused or recycled. The commenter asserted that the FAA should prioritize sustainable disposal and recycling practices.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.5, the FAA issues an AD when an unsafe condition exists on an aircraft, aircraft engine, propellers, or appliances, and the condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. Mandating how operators dispose of parts removed from an airplane or their spares inventory does not address the unsafe condition. Further, according to § 39.11, an AD specifies the actions that must be taken to resolve the unsafe condition. Any actions required beyond that may create an unnecessary burden on operators. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD to require robust reporting, training, and oversight to protect maintenance workers who inspect and repair the affected seats. The commenter stated seat maintenance can involve awkward and hazardous positions, and the FAA should ensure that airlines are required to provide safe working conditions, ergonomic equipment, and paid time for proper safety procedures.

The FAA disagrees with revising the AD. As stated previously, the FAA issues an AD to require the necessary actions to adequately address an unsafe condition on an affected product. The safety and protection of maintenance workers is outside the scope of this AD. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter asked if the FAA has a plan to monitor and enforce labor standards and fair working conditions in the manufacturing and supply chain for replacement of seat parts. The commenter stated that the proposed AD should not create pressure to outsource work to low-wage and -rights facilities.

The FAA does not plan to monitor or enforce labor standards and working conditions related to the production and supply of replacement seat parts. The enforcement of labor standards and fair working conditions is outside the scope of this AD. As stated previously, the FAA issues an AD to require the necessary actions to adequately address an unsafe condition on an affected product. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

An anonymous commenter asked what measures the FAA will take to prevent airlines from passing on AD compliance costs directly to passengers through fare increases or fees, which disproportionately burden working-class travelers.

The FAA acknowledges the commenter's concern. As stated previously, the FAA issues an AD to require the necessary actions to adequately address an unsafe condition on an affected product. The FAA's authority to regulate air safety does not include prescribing how a private company conducts its business. The FAA has not changed the AD in this regard.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for the foregoing 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 Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2023. This material specifies procedures for repetitive horizontal actuator identifications, repetitive checks of the HMS, a detailed inspection of the HMS, as applicable, and applicable on-condition actions including an overhaul and checks of the HMS, with the option to install a serviceable seat under certain conditions, which terminates the repetitive checks.

The FAA reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0309, Revision 2, dated June 12, 2023. This material specifies procedures for a general visual inspection to determine the seat part numbers on the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and, for seats with certain part numbers, a manual override cable adjustment check of the Captain's and First Officer's seats, and applicable on-condition actions including moving the adjustment nut, tightening the lock nut, and readjusting the control lever.

This AD also requires Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 757-25-0308, Revision 1, dated June 7, 2018, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January 31, 2019 (83 FR 66612, December 27, 2018).

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

Certain configurations of the Captain's and First Officer's seats may require special tooling to test the seats. Special tooling for one set of Captain's and First Officer's seats will cost $30,000, and a certain other set will cost $32,500. If an operator owns both combinations of seats, the special tooling will cost up to $62,500 per operator.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide the remaining cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-08-08, Amendment 39-22011 (87 FR 23755, April 21, 2022) (AD 2022-08-08). AD 2022-08-08 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD 2022-08-08 required repetitive special detailed inspections of certain areas and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA issued AD 2022-08-08 to address cracks in the double joggle areas at frame (FR) 16 and FR20, right-hand and left-hand sides, which, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the fuselage.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2024 (89 FR 59857). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2023-0212, dated December 6, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0212), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2023-0212 states that the unsafe condition may also exist on Airbus SAS A318/A320/A321 “NEO” airplanes ( i.e., Airbus SAS Model A318-151N, -153N, and -171N; A320-251N, -252N, -253N, -271N, -272N, and -273N; and A321-251N, -251NX, -252N, -252NX, -253N, -253NX, -271N, -271NX, -272N, and -272NX airplanes), so these airplanes are added to the applicability. In addition, Airbus has developed additional, new structural repair manual (SRM) tasks that are considered additional alternative methods to the Airbus repair designs originally required by EASA AD 2021-0227, dated October 11, 2021, for the airplanes affected by that AD.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2022-08-08 and add NEO airplane models to the applicability, as specified in EASA AD 2023-0212.

The FAA issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-08-08. The SNPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2025 (90 FR 9695). The SNPRM was prompted EASA AD 2024-0217, dated November 18, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0217) (also referred to as “the MCAI”), which superseded EASA AD 2023-0212. Since EASA AD 2023-0212 was issued, it was determined that AD-mandated repetitive inspections were incorrectly terminated for all the Airbus repair instructions; only those in which the termination of the AD-mandated inspections was explicitly written in the Airbus-approved instructions should have been terminated. Therefore, additional requirements are necessary for airplanes that have been repaired after accomplishment of ALI tasks 531153-02 or 531155-02.

In the SNPRM, the FAA revised the NPRM by adding additional requirements for airplanes that have been repaired after accomplishment of ALI task 531153-02 or 531155-02. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-1895.

The FAA received comments from an individual who supported the SNPRM without change.

The FAA received additional comments from Delta Air Lines (Delta) and an individual. The following presents the comment received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response.

An individual requested that the FAA be required to inspect all affected airplanes to determine if there is significant damage. The individual also requested that any safety requirements of the proposed AD be repaired before further flight.

The FAA agrees to clarify. The actions required by this AD are the responsibility of operators. FAA regulations (14 CFR 43.3) stipulate who can perform maintenance on or alter an airplane on the U.S. registry, including inspections required by an AD. AD actions must be performed by people holding certain certificates or having specialized training that provides them the knowledge necessary to properly inspect and repair airplanes. In addition, this AD requires operators to address any cracks that are detected before further flight. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

Delta requested that the FAA add an exception to paragraph (h) of the proposed AD to specify that the repetitive inspections in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0217 supersede the repetitive inspections in SRM task 53-11-12-205-008 or 53-11-12-205-007, as applicable. Delta stated that, if cracking is found, two of the service bulletins referenced in the Corrective Action(s) paragraph of EASA AD 2024-0217 specify to repair using SRM task 53-11-12-300-012 or 53-11-12-300-013, which in turn specify doing repetitive inspections per SRM task 53-11-12-205-008 or SRM task 53-11-12-205-007, respectively. Delta also stated that SRM tasks 53-11-12-205-008 and SRM task 53-11-12-205-007 do not specify that these repetitive inspections supersede, replace, or terminate the repetitive inspections in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0217. Delta asserted this results in duplicative repetitive inspections of the same area at different compliance times since accomplishing the corrective action also does not terminate the repetitive inspections in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0217.

The FAA agrees that the AD is not intended to require duplicative repetitive inspections. However, the FAA has determined that an exception is not necessary. This AD only requires the repetitive inspections to be done in accordance with paragraph (1) of the EASA AD except as specified in paragraph (7) of EASA AD 2024-0217. The provision in paragraph (7) of EASA 2024-0217 specifies “unless specified otherwise in the instructions provided by Airbus”, which applies to the statement in the material referenced in paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0217 that states to repeat the inspection for the non-repaired hole(s). Therefore, paragraph (1) of EASA AD 2024-0217 does not require repetitive inspections of repaired holes at those locations. However, the repetitive post-repair inspections referenced in SRM tasks 53-11-12-205-008 and 53-11-12-205-007 may be required for compliance with paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2024-0217. The FAA has not revised the AD in this regard.

In the SNPRM, the FAA stated that accomplishing the required actions would terminate ALI tasks 531153-02-1, 531153-02-2, 531155-02-1, and 531155-02-2, as required by paragraph (o) of AD 2023-13-10, Amendment 39-22495 (88 FR 50005, August 1, 2023) (AD 2023-13-10). AD 2023-13-10 has since been superseded by AD 2025-03-06, Amendment 39-22954 (90 FR 9595, February 14, 2025) (AD 2025-03-06). The service information referenced in AD 2025-03-06 revises ALI tasks 531153-02-1 and 531155-02-1 and deletes ALI tasks 531153-02-2 and 531155-02-2. The FAA has therefore revised paragraph (b)(2) of this AD to specify that it affects AD 2025-03-06 and revised paragraph (j) of this AD to specify that accomplishing the actions required by this AD terminates ALI tasks 531153-02-1 and 531155-02-1 as required by paragraph (n) of AD 2025-03-06.

Additionally, in the SNPRM the FAA inadvertently omitted an exception to require using the effective date of this AD in lieu of the effective date of EASA AD 2024-0217. The FAA has added paragraph (h)(4) of this AD to include this exception.

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 this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the SNPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0217, which specifies procedures for repetitive special detailed inspections for cracking of double joggle areas at FR16 and FR20, right-hand and left-hand sides, applicable on-condition actions (repair), and an optional modification of the double joggle area that terminates the repetitive inspections. The modification includes a rotating probe inspection of certain fastener holes for cracks, a check of the fastener holes for a minimum diameter, and applicable on-condition actions. EASA AD 2024-0217 also specifies that new SRM tasks have been developed that are acceptable for compliance with the corrective actions required by AD 2022-08-08 for airplanes affected by that AD. EASA AD 2024-0217 specifies additional requirements for airplanes that have been repaired after accomplishment of ALI task 531153-02 or 531155-02.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,755 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.

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:

As originally enacted, SMCRA exempted from the requirements of the Act “the extraction of coal for commercial purposes where the surface mining operation affects two acres or less.” 30 U.S.C. 1278(2) (1977). To implement this provision, in 1979, OSMRE promulgated regulations at 30 CFR 700.11(b) to reflect that operators of surface coal mining operations affecting two acres or less were not required to comply with the permitting, land reclamation, or environmental performance requirements imposed on larger operations by the SMCRA implementing regulations. 44 FR 15311 (Mar. 13, 1979). On May 7, 1987, Public Law 100-34, 101 Stat. 300 (1987), was signed in to law, amending SMCRA by repealing the exemption for coal extraction for commercial sites affecting two acres or less. The effective date of the law was June 6, 1987, and the grace period that Congress built into the law for operations to finish mining or come into compliance with SMCRA requirements expired 6 months after the enactment, meaning that since November 8, 1987, the requirements of SMCRA apply to all surface coal mining operations regardless of size, unless exempted under some other provision of SMCRA.

On June 4, 1987, OSMRE suspended § 700.11(b) but did not remove the text from the Federal Register , stating its intent to pursue a separate rulemaking at a later time to revise the suspended rules, consistent with the new law (52 FR 21228). However, OSMRE never pursued a separate rulemaking, and section 700.11(b) has remained a part of the Federal regulations, inoperative and confusing, for nearly 40 years. Section 700.11(b) is not authorized under SMCRA, as amended; was rightfully suspended nearly 40 years ago; and the obsolete text should be removed from the Code of Federal Regulations to make the regulations that implement SMCRA consistent with SMCRA and less confusing.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 30 CFR 700.11(b). The Department has no interest in maintaining rules that are obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the rescission of the regulations and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulations is inappropriate, including challenges to the rescission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the rescission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds obsolete regulatory provisions; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0094. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete language that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 700 as follows:

Paragraphs (b)(1) from both 30 CFR 816.46 and 30 CFR 817.46 require that “additional contributions of suspended solids sediment to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area shall be prevented to the extent possible using best technology currently available.” Paragraphs (b)(2) of sections 816.46 and 817.46 required that all surface drainage from the disturbed area pass through a siltation structure before leaving the permit area. Forty years ago, paragraphs (b)(2) of sections 816.46 and 817.46 were struck down on judicial review because the court found that OSMRE had not articulated a sufficient basis for the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act and that OSMRE had not sufficiently demonstrated that siltation structures were the best technology currently available in every case. See In re Permanent Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 620 F. Supp. 1519, 1566-1568 (D.D.C. 1985).

In response to the court's holding, OSMRE suspended paragraphs (b)(2) from both 30 CFR 816.46 and 30 CFR 817.46 on November 20, 1986, but did not remove them from the Code of Federal Regulations. 51 FR 41961 (Nov. 20, 1986). To avoid confusion that might result from the continuing publication of those rules in the Federal regulations, over a decade later, OSMRE attempted to remove paragraphs (b)(2) from sections 816.46 and 817.46 and redesignate the remaining paragraphs of those sections accordingly. 73 FR 75814, 75854 (Dec. 12, 2008). At that time, however, OSMRE omitted the words “lift the suspension” prior to directing the removal of the paragraphs, which had the effect of rendering the removal of those paragraphs inoperable. On September 29, 2010, OSMRE published technical amendments, that among other things lifted the suspension and removed the paragraphs. 75 FR 60272. However, when the Stream Buffer Rule was vacated, a final rule was published that erroneously reinstated the suspended provisions from the 2008 rule albeit with a sentence noting the suspension instead of an actual suspension. See, e.g., 79 FR 76227 (Dec. 22, 2014). OSMRE attempted to remove the provisions again as part of the Stream Protection Rule. 81 FR 93392 (Dec. 20, 2016). However, that rule was later disapproved by Congress and the prior language was reinstated. 82 FR 54979 (Nov. 17, 2017).

Upon reviewing these regulations, the 1985 court decision, and the various Federal Register notices attempting to rescind these regulations, OSMRE has determined that they should finally be rescinded because they were struck down upon judicial review and paragraph (b)(1) in sections 816.46 and 817.46 ensure that the best technology currently available, which may include siltation structures, is used to prevent, to the extent possible, additional contributions of suspended solids sediment to streamflow or runoff outside the permit area. Additionally, because the suspension was lifted in 2010, no further action is necessary to lift the suspension at this time. This reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of paragraphs (b)(2) from both 30 CFR 816.46 and 30 CFR 817.46. OSMRE has no interest in maintaining regulations that have been struck down by court order.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves no agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds a regulatory provision suspended by a court since 1985; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove language made obsolete by a 1985 court ruling.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0047. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR parts 816 and 817 as follows:

Paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121 provided that if damage to any non-commercial building or occupied residential dwelling or structures related thereto occurs as a result of earth movement within an area determined by projecting a specified angle of draw from the outermost boundary of any underground mine workings to the surface of the land, a rebuttable presumption would exist that the permittee caused the damage. The presumption typically would have applied to a 30-degree angle of draw. Once the presumption was triggered, the burden of going forward shifted to the mine operator to offer evidence that the damage was attributable to another cause.

Over 25 years ago, these provisions were struck down on judicial review because the court found that OSMRE failed to provide adequate support to justify its presumption that damage was the result of mining within the angle of draw. Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Babbitt, 172 F.3d 906, 912 (1999). In response to the court's holding, OSMRE suspended these provisions on December 22, 1999, but did not remove the language from the Code of Federal Regulations. 64 FR 71652, 71653 (Dec. 22, 1999). OSMRE attempted to lift the suspension and remove these provisions as part of the Stream Protection Rule in 2016 (81 FR 93418 (Dec. 20, 2020)). However, all proposed changes to OSMRE's regulations under the Stream Protection Rule were disapproved by Joint Resolution under the Congressional Review Act. Consequently, these removed provisions were reinstated. 82 FR 54924 (Nov. 17, 2017). Although we recognize that the Congressional Review Act at 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2) prevents OSMRE from reissuing the Stream Protection Rule in substantially the same form, we find that lifting the suspension and removing these provisions regarding a rebuttable presumption of causation is not substantially the same as the Stream Protection Rule because of the housekeeping and ministerial nature of removing an inoperative regulation.

Upon reviewing these regulations, OSMRE has determined that the suspension should be lifted and paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121 should be rescinded because they were vacated by court order in 1999, and it is confusing to allow these inoperative provisions to remain in OSMRE's regulations. This reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv) of 30 CFR 817.121. OSMRE has no interest in maintaining regulations that have been vacated by court order.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds a regulatory provision vacated by a court in 1999; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove language made obsolete by a 1999 court ruling.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0048. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 817 as follows:

The Federal regulations implementing the version of 30 U.S.C. 1232(a) that was in effect before the amendments made to that section by Public Law 117-58 (2021) are contained in 30 CFR 870.13(a). These regulations set fees for coal produced for sale, transfer, or use from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2021. Upon reviewing these regulations, the Department of the Interior (Department) and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) have determined that this provision should be rescinded due to obsolescence resulting from the passage of time. The content of existing paragraph (b) of 30 CFR 870.13 will become the entire remaining section. No changes were made to the content of existing paragraph (b).

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescission of 30 CFR 870.13(a). The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the rule and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule rescinds an obsolete regulatory provision; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0063. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove an obsolete provision that is no longer used. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement amends 30 CFR part 870 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 874.11 clarify that States and Tribes must comply with 30 CFR part 874 when funding reclamation projects with certain moneys distributed by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) under Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 30 CFR 874.11(b) refers to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA required OSMRE to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for seven years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that existing 30 CFR 874.11(b) should be rescinded because it is obsolete. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

The Department has determined that this reason, independently and alone, justifies rescinding 30 CFR 874.11(b). The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the recission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the recission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the recission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the recission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0113. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends 30 CFR part 874 as follows:

The Federal regulations at 30 CFR 875.16 prohibit certified and uncertified States and Tribes from expending certain moneys awarded to them by OSMRE under title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) for the reclamation of sites and areas designated for remedial action under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq. ) or that have been listed for remedial action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. ). Existing 30 CFR 875.16(a) and (b)(2) refer to prior balance replacement funds, which are moneys from the United States Treasury's General Fund that replaced State or Tribal share funds that were allocated before October 1, 2007, but never appropriated by Congress. Section 411(h)(1) of SMCRA required OSMRE to distribute prior balance replacement funds to eligible States and Tribes for 7 years, beginning October 1, 2008. As the distribution of prior balance replacement funds is complete, the Department of the Interior (Department) and OSMRE have determined that the reference to prior balance replacement funds in 30 CFR 875.16(a) should be removed and existing 30 CFR 875.16(b)(2) should be rescinded because they are obsolete. To the extent States or Tribes may have any unspent prior balance replacement funds, those funds will be governed by the regulations that were in place at the time of the initial grant award.

The Department has determined that these reasons, independently and alone, justify amending 30 CFR 875.16(a) and rescinding existing 30 CFR 875.16(b)(2) to remove the references to prior balance replacement funds. The Department has no interest in maintaining a rule that is obsolete.

The Department is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Id. § 553(b)(B). The Department has determined that notice and comment are unnecessary because this rule is noncontroversial; of a minor, technical nature; involves little agency discretion; and is unlikely to receive any significant adverse comments. Significant adverse comments are those that oppose the amendment or rescission of the regulatory language and raise, alone or in combination, (1) reasons why the amendment or rescission of the regulatory language is inappropriate, including challenges to the amendment's or rescission's underlying premise, or (2) serious unintended consequences of the amendment or rescission. A comment recommending an addition to the rule will not be considered significant and adverse unless the comment explains how this direct final rule would be ineffective without the addition.

This rule does not result in a taking of private property or otherwise have regulatory takings implications under Executive Order 12630. The rule revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language; therefore, the rule will not result in private property being taken for public use without just compensation. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866, while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, reduce uncertainty, and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that agencies must base regulations on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Department developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This direct final rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Among other things, this rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation;

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

Under the criteria of section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This 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. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

The Department strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. The Department evaluated this direct final rule under Executive Order 13175 and the Department's consultation policies and determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's Tribal consultation policies is not required. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language.

This direct final rule is not a significant energy action as defined in Executive Order 13211. Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

This direct final rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) is not required because this rule is covered by a categorical exclusion applicable to regulatory functions “that are of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” 43 CFR 46.210(i). In addition, the Department has determined that this rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

This rule does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. OMB previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and assigned OMB control number 1029-0103. This rule does not impose an information collection burden because the Department is not making any changes to the information collection requirements.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for all rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). As the Department is not required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this direct final rule, the RFA does not apply.

This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Specifically, the direct final rule: (a) will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (b) will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.

This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector, of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments, or the private sector. The rule merely revises the Federal regulations to remove obsolete regulatory language. Therefore, a statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department amends 30 CFR part 875 as follows:

Section 118 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, creates a statutory license for the use of published nondramatic musical works and published pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works in connection with noncommercial broadcasting.

On June 28, 2023, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) adopted final regulations governing the rates and terms of copyright royalty payments under section 118 of the Copyright Act for the license period 2023-2027. See 88 FR 41827. Pursuant to these regulations, on or before December 1 of each year, the Judges shall publish in the Federal Register notice of the change in the cost of living and a revised schedule of the rates codified at § 381.5(c)(3) and (4) relating to compositions in the repertory of SESAC and GMR. The adjustment, fixed to the nearest dollar, shall be the greater of (1) the change in the cost of living as determined by the Consumer Price Index (all consumers, all items) (“CPI-U”) “during the period from the most recent index published prior to the previous notice to the most recent index published prior to December 1 of that year” or (2) 1.5%. 37 CFR 381.10.

The change in the cost of living as determined by the CPI-U during the period from the most recent index published prior to the previous notice, i.e., before December 1, 2024, to the most recent index published before December 1, 2025, is 2.9%. 1 In accordance with 37 CFR 381.10(b), the Judges announce that the COLA for calendar year 2026 shall be 2.9%. Application of the 2.9% COLA to the 2025 rates for the performance of published nondramatic musical compositions in the repertory of SESAC and GMR—$199 per station—results in an adjusted rate of $205 per station, rounded to the nearest dollar.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Judges amend part 381 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

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

The EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by the State of Montana to the EPA on August 10, 2022, addressing the requirements of the second implementation period of the RHR. As required by section 169A of the CAA, the RHR calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The rule requires the states, in coordination with the EPA, the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, and other interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that causes visibility impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Visibility impairing pollutants include fine and coarse particulate matter (PM) ( e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and their precursors ( e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NO X ), and, in some cases, volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 )). As discussed in further detail in our proposed rule, this document, and the accompanying Response to Comments (RTC) document, the EPA finds that Montana submitted a regional haze SIP that meets all the regional haze requirements for the second implementation period. The State's submission, the proposed rule, and the RTC document can be found in the docket for this action.

On August 10, 2022, Montana submitted a revision to its SIP to address its regional haze obligations for the second implementation period (2018-2028). Montana made this revision to satisfy the requirements of the CAA's regional haze program pursuant to CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 51.308.

On September 11, 2025, the EPA proposed to approve Montana's 2022 SIP submission. 1 Specifically, the EPA proposed to approve Montana's 2022 SIP submission as satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1): calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and the uniform rate of progress; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2): long-term strategy; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3): reasonable progress goals; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(4): reasonably attributable visibility impairment; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g): progress report requirements; 40 CFR 51.308(f)(6): monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements; and 40 CFR 51.308(i): Federal Land Manager (FLM) consultation. Our public comment period closed on October 14, 2025.

The September 11, 2025, proposed rule provided background on the requirements of the CAA and RHR, a summary of Montana's regional haze SIP submittal and related EPA actions, and the EPA's rationale for its proposed action. That background and rationale will not be restated here. For the reasons stated in the proposed rule, this document, and in the accompanying RTC document, the EPA concludes that Montana's 2022 SIP submission meets the requirements of the CAA and RHR.

The public comment period on the proposal closed on October 14, 2025. During the public comment period, we received 16 comments on our proposal: 1 in support and 15 in opposition. The commenters were: Conservation Groups, 2 the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANEVU), 3 Cabinet Resource Group, 4 Talen Montana, 5 and eight individual commenters. 6 The full text of comments received is included in the publicly posted docket associated with this action at https://www.regulations.gov. Our RTC document, which is also included in the docket associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all significant comments received.

For the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed rule, in the RTC document, and in this document, we are approving Montana's 2022 SIP submission. Specifically, we are approving Montana's 2022 SIP submission relating to CAA 169A:

• Calculations of baseline, current, and natural visibility conditions, progress to date, and uniform rate of progress (40 CFR 51.308(f)(1));

• Long-term strategy (40 CFR 51.308(f)(2));

• Reasonable progress goals (40 CFR 51.308(f)(3));

• Reasonably attributable visibility impairment (40 CFR 51.308(f)(4));

• Progress report requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(5) and 40 CFR 51.308(g));

• Monitoring strategy and other implementation plan requirements (40 CFR 51.308(f)(6));

• FLM consultation (40 CFR 51.308(i)).

In addition, we are approving the prong 4 visibility portion of Montana's October 1, 2018 Infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

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

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Is not subject to Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) because State Implementation Plan approvals under the CAA 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, 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);

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

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

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and 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 January 27, 2026. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

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

Because the EPA received adverse comment, the Agency is withdrawing the direct final rule entitled, “Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source Category—Initial Notification Date Extension,” published on October 2, 2025 (90 FR 47617). The EPA stated in that direct final rule that if it received adverse comment by November 3, 2025, the direct final rule would not take effect, and the EPA would publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register . Because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule, it is withdrawing the direct final rule.

The EPA published a companion proposed rule on the same day as the direct final rule (90 FR 47693). The proposed rule invited comment on the substance of the direct final rule (as well as on additional subjects). The EPA will address those comments in a subsequent final action, which will be based on the companion proposed rule. As stated in the direct final rule and the companion proposed rule, the EPA will not institute a second comment period on this subject.

In FR Doc. 2025-19787 of November 5, 2025, the CY 2026 PFS final rule (90 FR 49266), there were technical errors that are identified in this correcting document.

On pages 49493, 49496, 49501, 49504, and 49506 through 49509, we inadvertently made typographical and technical errors in our discussion of the payment for skin substitutes.

Section 1871(b)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires the Secretary to provide for notice of a proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period of not less than 60 days for public comment. In addition, section 1871(e)(1)(B)(i) of the Act mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Section 1871(b)(2)(C) of the Act provides an exception from the notice and 60-day comment period and delay in effective date requirements of the Act, under the good cause standard set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act provides an exception from the delay in effective date requirements of the Act as well. Section 553(b)(B) authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. In addition, section 1871(e)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where the waiver is necessary to comply with statutory requirements or such delay is contrary to the public interest and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it.

In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects technical and typographical errors in the payment for skin substitutes provisions of the CY 2026 PFS final rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were proposed, subject to notice and comment procedures, and adopted in the CY 2026 PFS final rule. As a result, the corrections made through this document are intended to resolve inadvertent errors in the discussion of the skin substitutes policies so that the CY 2026 PFS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted therein.

In addition, even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2026 PFS final rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections are unnecessary because we are not making any substantive revisions to the CY 2026 PFS final rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register documents to reflect the skin substitutes policies that we previously proposed, received public comment on, and subsequently finalized in the CY 2026 PFS final rule. Further comment is not needed to inform our decision to rectify the ministerial errors noted in this final rule and correction. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive notice and comment and delay in effective date, even if they were required.

In FR Doc. 2025-19787 of November 5, 2025 (90 FR 49266), make the following corrections:

1. On page 49493,

a. Second column, second full paragraph, line 33 and 34, the phrase “as a drug or as a biological product” is corrected to read “as a biological product”; and

b. Third column, first partial paragraph, line 10, the phrase “as a drug or as a biological product” is corrected to read “as a biological product”.

2. On page 49496, first column, fourth full paragraph, line 5, “as a drug or as a biological product” is corrected to read “as a biological product”.

3. On page 49501, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 21 through 25, the phrase “the file titled `Skin Substitute Products by FDA Regulatory Category' on the CMS website under downloads for the CY 2026 PFS final rule at” is corrected to read “Addendum B of the PFS proposed rule' on the CMS website under downloads for the CY 2026 PFS proposed rule at”.

4. On page 49504,

a. First column,

(1) First full paragraph, line 2, the phrase “an initial payment rate” is corrected to read “an initial proposed payment rate”.

(2) Second full paragraph, line 6, the phrase “quarter of data.” is corrected to read “quarter of data at the time of the proposed rule.”.

b. Second column, second full paragraph, line 3, the phrase “$125 per square centimeter” is corrected to read “$125/cm 2 ”.

5. On page 49506, third column, first full paragraph, line 8, the phrase “$125.38 rate” is corrected to read “$125.38/cm 2 rate”.

6. On page 49507, second column,

a. First partial paragraph, line 9, the phrase “$127.28/cm 2 .” is corrected to read “$127.14/cm 2 ”.

b. Second full paragraph, lines 8 through 17 the phrase “the exception of updates to several code classifications and updated with the most recent data available as of the time of drafting this final rule, which resulted in a final payment rate for CY 2026 of $127.19/cm2. Specifically, we used 2026 MUC data (based on 2024 claims data) for the fourth quarter 2024 ASP data, weight by hospital outpatient claims volume.” is corrected to read “the exception of updating the calculation with more recent utilization data available as of the time of drafting this final rule, which resulted in a final payment rate for CY 2026 of $127.14/cm 2 . Specifically, we also used fourth quarter 2024 ASP data and 2026 MUC data (based on 2024 claims data), when ASP data was not available, weighted by more up to date hospital outpatient claims volume.”.

7. On page 49508, second column, first partial paragraph, lines 4 and 5, the phrase “a skin substitute is approved as a drug or as a biological product” is corrected to read “a skin substitute is approved as a biological product”.

8. On page 49509, third column, first partial paragraph,

a. Line 8, the figure “$127.28/cm 2 ” is corrected to read “$127.14/cm 2 ”.

b. Lines 11 and 12, the phrase “This rate reflects updates to several code classifications and uses” is corrected to read “This rate uses”.