Please refer to Docket ID: NRC-2025-0025 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2025-0025. Address questions about NRC dockets to Helen Chang, telephone: 301-415-3228, email: Helen.Chang@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

• NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

• NRC's PDR: The PDR, where you may examine and order copies of publicly available documents, is open by appointment. To make an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website ( https://www.regulations.gov ). Please include Docket ID NRC-2025-0025 in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

This rule is limited to the changes contained in Renewed Amendment No. 10, and the Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 and does not include other aspects of the NAC-UMS® Universal Storage Cask System (NAC-UMS®) design. The NRC is using the “direct final rule procedure” to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing certificate of compliance that is expected to be non-controversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be reasonably assured. The amendment to the rule will become effective on February 23, 2026. However, if the NRC receives any significant adverse comment on this direct final rule by January 7, 2026, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws this action and will subsequently address the comments received in a final rule as a response to the companion proposed rule published in the Proposed Rules section of this issue of the Federal Register or as otherwise appropriate. In general, absent significant modifications to the proposed revisions requiring republication, the NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action.

A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if:

(1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, a substantive response is required when:

(a) The comment causes the NRC to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis;

(b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or

(c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC.

(2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition.

(3) The comment causes the NRC to make a change (other than editorial) to the rule, certificate of compliance, or technical specifications.

Section 218(a) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires that “[t]he Secretary [of the Department of Energy] shall establish a demonstration program, in cooperation with the private sector, for the dry storage of spent nuclear fuel at civilian nuclear power reactor sites, with the objective of establishing one or more technologies that the [Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may, by rule, approve for use at the sites of civilian nuclear power reactors without, to the maximum extent practicable, the need for additional site-specific approvals by the Commission.” Section 133 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act states, in part, that “[t]he Commission shall, by rule, establish procedures for the licensing of any technology approved by the Commission under Section 219(a) [sic: 218(a)] for use at the site of any civilian nuclear power reactor.”

To implement this mandate, the Commission approved dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in NRC-approved casks under a general license by publishing a final rule that added a new subpart K in part 72 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) entitled “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites” (55 FR 29181; July 18, 1990). This rule also established a new subpart L in 10 CFR part 72 entitled “Approval of Spent Fuel Storage Casks,” which contains procedures and criteria for obtaining NRC approval of spent fuel storage cask designs. The NRC subsequently issued a final rule on October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), that approved the NAC-UMS® design and added it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214 as Certificate of Compliance No. 1015.

On October 10, 2023 (ML23283A249 and ML23291A095), NAC International, Inc submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. NAC International, Inc supplemented its request on the following dates: February 13, 2024 (ML24044A221), June 26, 2024 (ML24179A058), December 19, 2024 (ML25021A284), January 14, 2025 (ML25014A450), July 17, 2025 (ML25198A286), and August 27, 2025 (ML25240A911). The request includes proposed changes to correct licensing basis deficiencies identified in a NAC International, Inc. letter to the NRC. Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 revise a parameter used in the computation of bending stress in the finite element model used to structurally evaluate a fuel rod under the non-mechanistic tip-over accident condition, and updates the pressurized water reactor (PWR) end drop evaluation using the methodology already approved for the boiling water reactor (BWR) end drop evaluation. In addition, they update the address in the CoC to reflect the new address of the applicant's headquarters offices.

As documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report, the NRC performed a safety evaluation of the proposed certificate of compliance amendment request. The NRC determined that this amendment does not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Specifically, the NRC determined that the design of the cask would continue to maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of each evaluated accident condition. In addition, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 would remain well within the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.” Thus, the NRC found there will be no significant change in the types or amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposure, and no significant increase in the potential for or consequences from radiological accidents.

The NRC staff determined that the amended NAC-UMS® design, when used under the conditions specified in the certificate of compliance, the technical specifications, and the NRC's regulations, will meet the requirements of 10 CFR part 72; therefore, adequate protection of public health and safety will continue to be reasonably assured. When this direct final rule becomes effective, persons who hold a general license under § 72.210 may, consistent with the license conditions under § 72.212, load spent nuclear fuel into NAC-UMS® design that meet the criteria of Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015.

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this direct final rule, the NRC revises the NAC-UMS® design listed in § 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.

Under the “Agreement State Program Policy Statement” approved by the Commission on October 2, 2017, and published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48535), this rule is classified as Compatibility Category NRC—Areas of Exclusive NRC Regulatory Authority. The NRC program elements in this category are those that relate directly to areas of regulation reserved to the NRC by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the provisions of 10 CFR chapter I. Therefore, compatibility is not required for program elements in this category.

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).

Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” the NRC has determined that this direct final rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. The NRC has made a finding of no significant impact on the basis of this environmental assessment. This environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact can be tracked with identification number NEPA ID EAXX-429-00-000-1744008458.

The action is to amend § 72.214 to revise the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS® design listing within the “List of approved spent fuel storage casks” to add Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015.

This direct final rule amends the certificate of compliance for the NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS® design within the list of approved spent fuel storage casks to allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel at reactor sites in casks with the approved modifications under a general license. Specifically, Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 revise a parameter used in the computation of bending stress in the finite element model used to structurally evaluate a fuel rod under the non-mechanistic tip-over accident condition, and updates the pressurized water reactor (PWR) end drop evaluation using the methodology already approved for the boiling water reactor (BWR) end drop evaluation. In addition, they update the address in the CoC to reflect the new address of the applicant's headquarters offices.

On July 18,1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. The potential environmental impact of using NRC-approved storage casks was analyzed in the environmental assessment for the 1990 final rule. The environmental assessment for this addition of Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 of Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 tiers off of the environmental assessment for the July 18, 1990, final rule. Tiering on past environmental assessments is a standard process under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

The NAC International, Inc. NAC-UMS® is designed to mitigate the effects of design basis accidents that could occur during storage. Design basis accidents account for human-induced events and the most severe natural phenomena reported for the site and surrounding area. Postulated accidents analyzed for an independent spent fuel storage installation, the type of facility at which a holder of a power reactor operating license would store spent fuel in casks in accordance with 10 CFR part 72, can include tornado winds and tornado-generated missiles, a design basis earthquake, a design basis flood, an accidental cask drop, lightning effects, fire, explosions, and other incidents.

This amendment and revision do not reflect a significant change in design or fabrication of the cask. Because there are no significant design or process changes, any resulting occupational exposure or offsite dose rates from the implementation of Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 would remain well within the 10 CFR part 20 limits. The NRC has also determined that the design of the cask as modified by this rule would maintain confinement, shielding, and criticality control in the event of an accident. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in any radiological or non-radiological environmental impacts that significantly differ from the environmental impacts evaluated in the environmental assessment supporting the July 18, 1990, final rule. There will be no significant change in the types or significant revisions in the amounts of any effluent released, no significant increase in the individual or cumulative radiation exposures, and no significant increase in the potential for, or consequences from, radiological accidents. The NRC documented its safety findings in the preliminary safety evaluation report.

The alternative to this action is to deny approval of Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 and not issue the direct final rule. Consequently, any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee that seeks to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International, Inc. NAC-UMS® design in accordance with the changes described in proposed Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 would have to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, interested licensees would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee. The environmental impacts would be the same as the proposed action.

Approval of the addition of Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 would result in no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of Federal resources.

No agencies or persons outside the NRC were contacted in connection with the preparation of this environmental assessment.

The environmental impacts of the action have been reviewed under the requirements in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the NRC's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” Based on the foregoing environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this direct final rule, “List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC International, Inc., NAC-UMS® Universal Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewed Amendment No. 10, and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9,” will not have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact statement is not necessary for this direct final rule.

This direct final rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). Existing collections of information were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0132.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget control number.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the NRC certifies that this direct final rule will not, if issued, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule affects only nuclear power plant licensees and NAC International, Inc. These entities do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the NRC (§ 2.810).

On July 18, 1990 (55 FR 29181), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 to provide for the storage of spent nuclear fuel under a general license in cask designs approved by the NRC. Any nuclear power reactor licensee can use NRC-approved cask designs to store spent nuclear fuel if (1) it notifies the NRC in advance; (2) the spent fuel is stored under the conditions specified in the cask's certificate of compliance; and (3) the conditions of the general license are met. A list of NRC-approved cask designs is contained in § 72.214. On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62581), the NRC issued an amendment to 10 CFR part 72 that approved the NAC-UMS® design by adding it to the list of NRC-approved cask designs in § 72.214.

On October 10, 2023, and as supplemented on, February 13, 2024, June 26, 2024, December 19, 2024, January 14, 2025, July 17, 2025, and August 27, 2025, NAC International, Inc submitted a request to the NRC to amend Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. NAC International, Inc submitted a request to amend the NAC-UMS® design as described in Section IV, “Discussion of Changes,” of this document.

The alternative to this action is to withhold approval of Renewed Amendment No.10, and of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9, and to require any 10 CFR part 72 general licensee seeking to load spent nuclear fuel into NAC International, Inc. NAC-UMS® design under the changes described in Renewed Amendment No. 10, and in Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to request an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212 and 72.214. Under this alternative, each interested 10 CFR part 72 licensee would have to prepare, and the NRC would have to review, a separate exemption request, thereby increasing the administrative burden upon the NRC and the costs to each licensee.

Approval of this direct final rule is consistent with previous NRC actions. Further, as documented in the preliminary safety evaluation report and environmental assessment, this direct final rule will have no adverse effect on public health and safety or the environment. This direct final rule has no significant identifiable impact or benefit on other government agencies. Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC concludes that the requirements of this direct final rule are commensurate with the NRC's responsibilities for public health and safety and the common defense and security. No other available alternative is believed to be as satisfactory; therefore, this action is recommended.

This direct final rule adds Amendment No. 10 and revises Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 of the renewed Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC-UMS® system, as currently listed in 10 CFR 72.214, “List of approved spent fuel storage casks.” Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 to renewed CoC No. 1015 revise a parameter used in the computation of bending stress in the finite element model used to structurally evaluate a fuel rod under the non-mechanistic tip-over accident condition, and updates the PWR end drop evaluation using the methodology already approved for the BWR end drop evaluation to correct licensing basis deficiencies. In addition, they update the address in the CoC to reflect the new address of the applicant's headquarters offices.

For the following reasons, the NRC has determined that the regulations in 10 CFR 72.62, “Backfitting,” do not apply to this direct final rule.

Renewed Amendment No.10 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 for the NAC International, Inc. NAC-UMS® design was initiated by NAC International, Inc. and was not submitted in response to new NRC requirements or to an NRC request for amendment. Renewed Amendment No. 10 applies only to new casks fabricated and used under Amendment No. 10. These changes do not affect existing users of the NAC International Inc. NAC-UMS® design. While current users of this storage system may comply with the new requirements in Renewed Amendment No. 10, this would be a voluntary decision on the part of current users. For these reasons, Amendment No. 10 to Certificate of Compliance No. 1015 does not constitute backfitting under § 72.62 or § 50.109(a)(1) or otherwise represent an inconsistency with the issue finality provisions applicable to combined licenses in 10 CFR part 52.

NAC has manufactured casks under existing Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9, that are being revised by this final rule. As the vendor, NAC is not within the scope of the backfitting provisions in 10 CFR 72.62. Under 10 CFR 72.62, general licensees are entities that are within the scope of the backfitting regulations. However, according to NAC no general licensees are currently using NAC-UMS® systems under Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 and 8, which are, in part, the subject of these revisions. Therefore, because CoC No. 1015, Amendment Nos. 5 and 8 are not in use by any licensee, the changes in the revisions for Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 and 8, which are approved in this direct final rule, do not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62.

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company at its Maine Yankee independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) is the only general licensee using Renewed Amendment No. 6 that could be affected by the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 6. In a letter to NAC, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company stated that it intends to adopt the revision to Amendment No. 6, following the NRC approval and issuance. Therefore, because the licensee voluntarily intends to implement the revision, the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 6 does not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62. In a subsequent letter to the NRC, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company stated that it plans to adopt Renewed Amendment No. 9 to CoC No. 1015 as part of its work to adopt the renewed Certificate of Compliance No. 1015. In an email to the NRC Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company stated that it also intends to adopt the revision to Renewed Amendment No. 9, following NRC approval and issuance. Therefore, because the licensee voluntarily intends to implement the revision, the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 9 does not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62.

Duke Energy at the Catawba and McGuire ISFSIs is the only general licensee using renewed Amendment No. 7 that could be affected by the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 7. In a letter to NAC, Duke Energy stated that instead of adopting the revision to the amendment, Catawba and McGuire will be adopting the latest amendment for the NAC-UMS® system, Certificate of Compliance No. 1015, Renewed Amendment No.10 after approval from the NRC has been received. Therefore, because the licensee voluntarily intends to adopt the latest Renewed Amendment No. 10, the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 7 does not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62.

Arizona Public Service Company at the Palo Verde ISFSI is the only general licensee currently using Renewed Amendment No. 9 that could be affected by the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 9. In its communications to NAC, Arizona Public Service Company stated that it intends to adopt Renewed Amendment No. 9, Revision 1, once approved. Therefore, because the licensee voluntarily intends to adopt the revision, the issuance of Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment No. 9 does not fall within the definition of backfitting under 10 CFR 72.62.

For the reasons outlined, Renewed Amendment No. 10 and Revision 1 to Renewed Amendment Nos. 5 through 9 do not constitute backfitting under § 72.62. Accordingly, the NRC has not prepared a backfit analysis for this rulemaking.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E.O. 14215, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will determine whether a regulatory action is significant as defined by E.O. 12866 and will review significant regulatory actions. OIRA determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.

This direct final rule is not a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

The NRC may post materials related to this document, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2025-0025. In addition, the Federal rulemaking website allows members of the public to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2025-0025); (2) click the “Subscribe” link; and (3) enter an email address and click on the “Subscribe” link.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR part 72:

On December 9, 2024, the FAA issued final special conditions for the Airbus Models A321 neo ACF and A321 neo XLR with single-occupant oblique seats with pretensioner restraint systems, which published in the Federal Register on December, 13 2024 (89 FR 100727). The original special conditions used an incorrect special condition number. The correct number should be Special Conditions No. 25-870-SC.

In the Federal Register of December 13, 2024 (89 FR 100727), make the following correction:

On page 100727, in the first column, in the preamble section, correct “[Docket No. FAA-2024-2387; Special Conditions No. 25-871-SC]” to read “[Docket No. FAA-2024-2387; Special Conditions No. 25-870-SC]”.

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 Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2025 (90 FR 10705). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0131, dated July 8, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0131) (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 there have been reports of significant wear of the spherical bearings of control rod assemblies and pitch link assemblies having part number 105-13122, B623M3001101, D623M3201101, or D623M3201102. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to erroneous pitch and oscillations of the main rotor blades and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require measuring the radial play of certain spherical bearings of control rod assemblies and pitch link assemblies, reporting the results, and depending on the results, taking corrective action. The NPRM also prohibited installing certain control rod assemblies and pitch link assemblies unless certain requirements are met. 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-2025-0214.

The FAA received comments from two commenters. The commenters were an individual and the Air Medical Mechanics Organization (AMMO). The individual commenter expressed support for the proposed AD as written. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comments.

AMMO commented that the practice of relying on manufacturer-issued and foreign regulatory documents that are not fully integrated into the rule text creates ambiguity, enforcement concerns, and procedural noncompliance under Section 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 39 and the Administrative Procedure Act. The commenter requested that the FAA incorporate the complete inspection method, measurable thresholds, and response actions directly into the AD text. The commenter also requested that the FAA provide FAA-originated inspection criteria and field-level illustrations.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. This AD incorporates EASA AD 2024-0131 by reference. Incorporation by reference (IBR) allows Federal agencies to comply with the requirement to publish rules in the Federal Register by referring to materials already published elsewhere. The legal effect of IBR is that the material is treated as if it were published in the Federal Register . This AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2024-0131 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this AD. The complete inspection method, measurable thresholds, and corrective actions are included in EASA AD 2024-0131 and the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0131. Material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0131 for compliance will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0214. This material, like any other properly issued rule, has the force and effect of law, thus preventing any ambiguity, enforcement concerns, and procedural noncompliance issues under 14 CFR 39 and the Administrative Procedure Act. In addition, Congress authorized IBR in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), in part, to reduce the volume of material published in the Federal Register and the CFR. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

AMMO stated that certain words used in the EASA AD and the material referenced in the EASA AD are ambiguous and not standardized FAA terminology. It requested that the FAA provide standardized FAA terminology for field-observed symptoms such as “play” or “clicking.”

The FAA agrees that there could be certain words in the EASA AD and the material referenced in the EASA AD that are ambiguous. In these instances, the FAA writes exceptions to eliminate such ambiguity. For example, the term “play,” specified in EASA AD 2024-0131, is subjective. In paragraph (h)(2) of this AD, the FAA specifies that this AD does not adopt paragraph (1) and (2) of EASA AD 2024-0131. This exception removes the ambiguous term “play” from the requirements of this AD. In addition, in paragraph (h)(2) of this AD the FAA requires measurement of the radial play of the two spherical bearings of each affected part. The service bulletin then specifies actions based on the radial play measurements. By requiring these measurements, the term “play” is unambiguous in this AD. The term “clicking” referenced in the service bulletin is not part of the required actions. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

AMMO claimed that a line mechanic cannot be expected to navigate Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) reporting portals and requested that the FAA avoid exclusive reliance on OEM digital platforms for compliance reporting in the proposed AD.

The FAA disagrees with the request. EASA AD 2024-0131 identifies the on-line questionnaire referenced in the Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) as an acceptable method to comply with the reporting requirement, but it does not specify that it is the only acceptable method to comply with the reporting requirement. EASA AD 2024-0131 provides the website address for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH, which identifies contact information for the appropriate service area. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

AMMO stated that the FAA did not coordinate with Flight Standards field personnel to validate the AD's practical executability, as required by FAA's internal policy. The commenter suggested that the FAA coordinate the proposed AD with Flight Standards to validate the AD's practical executability.

The FAA disagrees with the implication that Flight Standards did not review the proposed AD. The FAA coordinates all AD actions with the appropriate Flight Standards Office before issuance. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

AMMO stated that EASA AD 2024-0131 and Airbus ASB MBB-BK117-62-33-0001 are not FAA-certified documents and are therefore subject to unilateral revision by external entities, not docketed for permanent public access, and inaccessible without subscriptions or OEM login credentials. The commenter requested that the FAA ensure that all referenced documents are docketed, publicly accessible, and version-locked.

The FAA disagrees with the commenter's statements about the referenced material. The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0131 and Airbus ASB MBB-BK117-62-33-0001 before issuing the NPRM and found them to be acceptable and locked. After this final rule is published, EASA AD 2024-0131 and the referenced material specified in EASA AD 2024-0131 that is required for compliance will be docketed and publicly accessible as they will be able to be found at regulations.gov by locating Docket No. FAA 2025-0214. Additionally, as stated in the NPRM, 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 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, 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 2024-0131, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the spherical bearings of the control rod assemblies and pitch link assemblies for radial play and, depending on the results, measuring the radial play of the spherical bearings of the control rod assembly and pitch link assembly. Depending on the measurement results, EASA AD 2024-0131 specifies replacing the control rod end and reporting all measurement results to AH (Airbus Helicopters). This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

This AD does not require inspecting the spherical bearings of the control rod assemblies and pitch link assemblies for play as specified in the MCAI since that action is subjective and could vary from mechanic to mechanic. Instead, this AD requires measuring the radial play of the spherical bearings of the control rod assembly and pitch link assembly. This AD also prohibits installing an affected control rod assembly or pitch link assembly unless the radial play of the assembly's two spherical bearings is measured and the radial play of each spherical bearing is equal to or less than 0.10 mm, whereas the MCAI does not require that installation limitation.

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

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 180 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Measuring the axial play takes 1 work-hour and reporting the results takes 1 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $30,600 for the U.S. fleet. If required, replacing a control rod or pitch link assembly takes 1 work-hour and parts cost $1,650 for an estimated cost of $1,735 per control rod or pitch link assembly replacement.

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 Airbus Helicopters Model EC 155B and EC 155B1 helicopters. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2025 (90 FR 28913). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0173, dated September 4, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0173) (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 during tests concerning jettisoning of windows on a Model EC 155 helicopter, it was identified that the required forces to jettison the windows exceed the maximum jettisoning effort requirements. The MCAI also states that Airbus Helicopters developed a modification of the jettisonable windows to address this unsafe condition.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacement of the jettisonable windows and seals on the sliding doors and fixed panels on the left-hand and right-hand sides. The FAA also proposed the installation of new labels.

The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the inability to jettison the window(s) during an emergency. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in a reduced capability to evacuate helicopter occupants during an emergency and consequent injury to helicopter occupants.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1350.

The FAA received comments from two anonymous commenters that were unrelated to the actions proposed in the NPRM or that did not make a request that the FAA can act on. These comments are outside the scope of this AD.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0173, which specifies procedures for replacement of the jettisonable windows and seals on the sliding doors and fixed panels on the left-hand and right-hand sides. The MCAI also specifies procedure for installation of new labels on the sliding doors and fixed panels. 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 16 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-06-13, Amendment 39-19882 (85 FR 19080, April 6, 2020) (AD 2020-06-13). AD 2020-06-13 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, and AS332L1 helicopters with an MGB suspension bar right-hand (RH) side rear fitting part number (P/N) 330A22-2702-07 and bolt P/N 330A22-0135-20, MGB suspension bar left-hand (LH) side rear fitting P/N 330A22-2702-06 and bolt P/N 330A22-0135-20, or MGB suspension bar front bolt P/N 330A22-0134-20 installed.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2025 (90 FR 22028). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2023-0194R1, dated March 19, 2025 (EASA AD 2023-0194R1) (also referred to as the MCAI), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI revised EASA AD 2023-0194, dated November 8, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0194) (no equivalent FAA AD), which stated that, following the loss of tightening torque of the attachment screws of the upper deck fittings of the three MGB suspension bars and previous interim action, Airbus Helicopters developed modification (mod) 0728496 (for helicopters with machined frames) and mod 0729200 (for helicopters with sheet metal frames), which improve the link of the fittings of the MGB suspension bars and include improved fitting screws. EASA AD 2023-0194 was then superseded by the MCAI when a new risk analysis determined the calendar time compliance time for the modification could be extended.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed retaining none of the requirements of AD 2020-06-13. Instead, in the NPRM the FAA proposed to require modifying the MGB suspension bar link and installing newly-designed bolts, and proposed to prohibit installing certain parts as specified in EASA AD 2023-0194R1.

This condition, if not addressed, could lead to structural failure of an MGB attachment assembly, detachment of an MGB suspension bar, and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0910.

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

These products have been approved by the civil aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. 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 2023-0194R1, which specifies procedures for determining the accumulated service life of the RH side and LH side rear fittings of the MGB suspension bars and repetitively replacing the RH side and LH side rear fittings and screws before exceeding accumulated service life limits. As an alternative to the first replacement of the RH side rear fittings and screws, if certain conditions are met, EASA AD 2023-0194R1 allows measuring the tightening torque, and depending on the measurement results, replacing affected parts with serviceable parts within extended compliance times. EASA AD 2023-0194R1 also specifies procedures for replacing each MGB front fitting screw at the next major inspection (G) and modifying the helicopter to improve the link of the fittings of the MGB suspension bar, which includes installing MGB fitting screws with an improved design. EASA AD 2023-0194R1 prohibits installing certain parts on any helicopter. Finally, EASA AD 2023-0194R1 specifies procedures for a terminating action if the helicopter has been modified as defined in EASA AD 2023-0194R1 and provides credit for certain previously accomplished requirements.

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

Where the MCAI allows an option of an inspection of the torque instead of replacement of the first MGB RH side rear fitting, which includes different replacement compliance times based on the torque inspection results, this AD does not.

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

Determining the total hours TIS of the rear MGB fittings will take 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $344 for the U.S. fleet.

Replacing a RH rear MGB fitting and its set of four bolts will take 8 work-hours, and parts cost $3,589 for an estimated cost of $4,269 per helicopter and $34,152 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

Replacing a set of four LH rear MGB fitting bolts will take 4 work-hours, and parts will cost $100 for an estimated cost of $440 per helicopter and $3,520 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

Replacing a LH rear MGB fitting will take 8 work-hours, and parts will cost $3,807 for an estimated cost of $4,487 per helicopter and $35,896 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

Replacing a set of front MGB fitting bolts (4 bolts per set) will take about 8 work-hours, and parts will cost $98 for an estimated cost of $778 per helicopter and $6,224 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

Modifying the MGB suspension bar (LH side and RH side) will take 56 work-hours, and parts will cost $115,509 for an estimated cost of $120,269 per helicopter.

The extent of corrective action that may be needed if there is damage, a crack, or insufficient clearance found while modifying the MGB suspension bar could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The FAA has no way of determining the cost to correct or repair each helicopter or the number of helicopters that may require repair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2024-10-13, Amendment 39-22759 (89 FR 56189, July 9, 2024) (AD 2024-10-13). AD 2024-10-13 applied to all Airbus Helicopters Model AS332C, AS332C1, AS332L, AS 332L1, AS 332L2, and EC 225LP helicopters. The FAA issued AD 2024-10-13 to prevent failure of the bowl, in-flight shutdown, and subsequent reduced control of the helicopter.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2025 (90 FR 23300). The NPRM was prompted by European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2024-0045, dated February 16, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0045) (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 new cases of fuel filter cracks were reported on helicopters that had been inspected as required by a previously issued EASA AD. The new cracks were located on the inner surface of the fuel filter bowls and likely resulted from excessive bowl tightening torque. The MCAI further states, following an investigation, Airbus Helicopters expanded the scope of the inspection of the fuel filters to include the inner surface of the bowls and revised the tightening torque.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the same actions as AD 2024-10-13, and also proposed to remove some helicopters from the applicability, add an inspection of the inner surface of the fuel filter bowls, and revise the tightening torque.

The FAA is issuing this AD to inspect for cracks and seepage on the bowl of the LH and RH fuel filter, which if not addressed, could result in failure of the fuel filter bowl, in-flight shutdown of both engines, and consequent reduced control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-0916.

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

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0045, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the outer and inner surfaces of the bowls of the LH and RH fuel filters for cracks and seepage. Depending on the inspection results, EASA AD 2024-0045 specifies procedures for replacing an affected part with a serviceable part. EASA AD 2024-0045 allows credit for the inspection of certain helicopters and also allows certain fuel filters to be installed on a helicopter if they have been inspected and no defects found.

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

Where the MCAI applies to helicopters delivered before February 15, 2024, this AD applies to helicopters with fuel filter part number 4020P25-5 or 704A44620049 installed and with an original airworthiness certificate or original export certificate of airworthiness issued before February 15, 2024.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 20 helicopters of U.S. registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

Inspecting the fuel filter bowls (two bowls per helicopter) for cracks and seepage will take 2 work-hours. No parts are required for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $3,400 for the U.S. fleet.

Replacing a fuel filter will take 2 work-hours, and parts cost $6,290 for an estimated cost of $6,460 per fuel filter replacement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-06-12, Amendment 39-19881 (85 FR 19077, April 6, 2020) (AD 2020-06-12). AD 2020-06-12 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 332L2 and EC 225LP helicopters with a MGB suspension bar front bolt part number (P/N) 332A22-1613-21 or 332A22-1613-20, MGB suspension bar rear bolt P/N 332A22-1614-20, MGB suspension bar front fitting P/N 332A22-1623-01, MGB suspension bar rear left-hand fitting P/N 332A22-1624-02 or 332A22-1624-04, or MGB suspension bar rear right-hand fitting P/N 332A22-1624-03 or 332A22-1624-05 installed. AD 2020-06-12 required determining the accumulated hours TIS of the affected bolts and fittings, applying a life limit add-on factor, and inspecting the torque of the MGB suspension bar attachment nuts. The FAA issued AD 2020-06-12 to address MGB suspension bar bolts and fittings remaining in service beyond their fatigue life and loose MGB suspension bar bolts and fittings, which could result in structural failure of the MGB suspension bar and loss of helicopter control.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 19, 2025 (90 FR 40262). The NPRM was prompted by a series of ADs related to this unsafe condition issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD 2022-0021, dated February 1, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0021), superseded EASA AD 2017-0189 due to Airbus Helicopters developing a design improvement consisting of installing new links on the fittings of the MGB suspension bars through modifications 0728521, 0728904, 0728496 and 0729044. EASA AD 2022-0021 introduced new service life limits (SLL) for certain post-modification parts and a new tightening torque check.

EASA AD 2022-0021 was subsequently superseded by EASA AD 2023-0147, dated July 19, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0147), after EASA determined that, for helicopters modified with the new links on the fittings of the MGB suspension bars using earlier revisions of the service information, installing shims on the rear cooling rails of the MGB compartment was necessary. EASA revised AD 2023-0147 and issued EASA AD 2023-0147R1, dated March 12, 2025 (EASA AD 2023-0147R1) (also referred to as “the MCAI”) to address a difficulty with the installation of modification kits for EC 225LP helicopters.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the actions of AD 2020-06-12, to include, using updated service information; determining the accumulated hours TIS of certain part-numbered bolts and certain part-numbered fittings; applying a life limit add-on penalty factor; removing any bolt that has reached or exceeded its life limit; inspecting the torque of certain nuts and, depending on the inspection, removing the bolt and nut from service. The NPRM also proposed to require modification of the MGB suspension bar, additional life limit calculations, a tightening torque inspection with new torque values, and removal and replacement of certain affected parts. Modification of the MGB suspension bar is considered terminating action for the proposed life limit calculations if certain requirements are met. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit installing a certain bolt after the modification is accomplished on any helicopter.

The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent MGB suspension bar attachment fittings and bolts remaining in service beyond their fatigue life. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure of an MGB attachment assembly, detachment of an MGB suspension bar, and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1736.

The FAA received a comment from one individual who requested more information about the bolts. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

The individual commenter requested additional information on the differences between the new MGB suspension bar rear bolts and the previous MGB suspension bar front bolts. The commenter acknowledges the affected bolts design may have been improved by installing new links on the fittings of the MGB suspension bars but inquired as to how Airbus Helicopters has ensured that these new bolts have a longer and safer life span.

The FAA infers the commenter is requesting more detailed information regarding the differences between the new and old MGB suspension bar rear bolts, as well as the measures Airbus Helicopters has implemented to ensure the improved performance of the new bolt. Although the FAA does not have specific information on the differences between the bolts and Airbus Helicopters manufacturing requirements, the FAA worked with the State of Design (EASA) to assure that the improved bolts are addressing the unsafe condition. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of this comment.

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

The FAA reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB) No. 01.00.86, Revision 4, dated January 6, 2022, for Model AS 332L2 helicopters and Airbus Helicopters EASB No. 04A013, Revision 4, dated January 6, 2022, for Model EC 225LP helicopters. This material specifies procedures for applying an add-on factor to the flying hours logged by the pins (bolts) and fittings and replacing them if the SLL is exceeded.

The FAA also reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. AS332-53.02.03, Revision 2, dated June 15, 2023, for Model AS 332LP helicopters and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. EC225-53A065, Revision 4, dated May 28, 2024, for Model EC 225LP helicopters. This material specifies procedures to install new links on the attachment brackets of the MGB suspension bars and corresponds to Airbus Helicopters modification 0728496, 0728521, 0728904, and 0729044.

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

The MCAI allows a 150-hour extension to the life limit of a fitting for Model AS 332L2 helicopters if a dye-penetrant inspection is performed on the fitting and no cracks are found. This AD does not allow that option.

For Model AS 332L2 helicopters, the MCAI requires replacing bolts installed with an incorrect torque value applied before the effective date of the MCAI. This AD requires inspecting the torque of each nut instead, and depending on the outcome, removing the nut and its bolt from service.

The MCAI refers to the front and rear attachment bolts as “pins,” whereas this AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 30 helicopters (2 Model AS 332L2 helicopters and 28 Model EC 225LP helicopters) of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour.

Determining the adjusted life limit for the fittings takes 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $86 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, replacing a fitting (including associated hardware) and applying torque takes 8 work-hours and parts cost $7,000 for an estimated cost of $7,680 per helicopter.

Determining the adjusted life limit for the bolts takes 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $1,290 for the U.S. fleet.

If required, replacing a bolt (including associated hardware) takes 4 work-hours and parts cost about $89 for an estimated cost of $429 per bolt.

Modifying each MGB suspension bar takes up to 40 work-hours and parts cost up to $54,445 for an estimated cost of up to $57,845 (depending on helicopter configuration) per modification (up to four modifications per helicopter).

Performing a tightening torque inspection takes 4 hours for an estimated cost of $340 per inspection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Airbus Helicopters Model AS 350B2, AS 350B3, AS355N, AS355NP, and EC 130 B4 helicopters equipped with ONBOARD systems 3500LB, having part number (P/N) 704A41811035. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2025 (90 FR 34386). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2025-0025, dated January 23, 2025 (EASA AD 2025-0025) (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 a report was received of a loss of cargo load during cargo swing operation on a helicopter. Subsequent investigation revealed an incorrect adjustment of the release cable of the cargo swing emergency release control.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a one-time inspection of the cargo swing emergency release control and, depending on the results, corrective actions.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address the adjustment of the cargo swing emergency release control. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in inflight loss of cargo load and injury to persons on the ground.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1363.

The FAA received a comment from one individual who disagreed with the practice of relying on manufacturer-issued and foreign regulatory documents that are not fully integrated into the rule text. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

The individual commenter requested that the FAA AD become a stand-alone document. The individual commented that relying on EASA's AD as the base document, and providing exceptions in the FAA's rule, makes the requirements confusing and could lead to possible errors.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. This AD incorporates EASA AD 2025-0025 by reference. Incorporating information by reference is a common method of federal rulemaking, that is explicitly permitted under 1 CFR part 51. As stated in the Incorporation by Reference Handbook, June 2023 Edition, incorporation of relevant, usually technical information (such as the MCAI) promotes efficiency. The complete inspection method, measurable thresholds, and corrective actions are included in EASA AD 2025-0025 and the material referenced in EASA AD 2025-0025, which are available at regulations.gov under the Docket No. for this AD, FAA-2025-1363. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

These products have been approved by the CAA of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, that authority has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA 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 2025-0025, which specifies procedures for a one-time inspection of the cargo swing emergency release control and, depending on the results, corrective actions. Corrective actions include adjustment of the cargo swing emergency release control or replacement of the dropping control. 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 1,036 helicopters of U.S. registry. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

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

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-20-16, Amendment 39-21754 (86 FR 57550, dated October 18, 2021) (AD 2021-20-16). AD 2021-20-16 applied to Airbus Helicopters Model AS355E, AS 355-F, AS 355-F1, AS355F2, AS355N, and AS355NP helicopters, all serial numbers, and Model AS 350B3 helicopters, all serial numbers except those that have Airbus Helicopters Modification 073148 in production. AD 2021-20-16 required repetitive cleaning and detailed inspections for cracking of the vertical fin spar and vertical fin upper attachments, and corrective action if necessary. The FAA issued AD 2021-20-16 to address cracking in the spar of the upper part of the vertical fin and fractures in the front attachment screws.

The NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 21, 2025 (90 FR 40786). The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2024-0139, dated July 12, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0139) (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 a further occurrence of a crack on a Model AS355NP helicopter, EASA concluded there was a need to temporarily reduce the never-exceed-speed (V NE ) for all AS355 helicopters. In addition, Airbus Helicopters developed a reinforced upper fin assembly and published service information that provides instructions for this modification. EASA AD 2024-0139 retains the repetitive inspections and V NE limitations in its previous ADs and also requires modification of the helicopter with the reinforced upper fin assembly, which is the terminating action for the inspections and limitations.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the same actions as AD 2021-20-16 and proposed to require replacement of the upper fin assembly with a modified upper fin assembly, which constitutes a terminating action for the repetitive inspections and limitations.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking in the upper fin spar and fracturing of the front attachment screws. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in in-flight separation of the upper part of the vertical fin and consequent loss of control of the helicopter.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2025-1735.

The FAA received a comment from one individual who disagreed with the practice of relying on manufacturer-issued and foreign regulatory documents that are not fully integrated into the rule text. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to the comment.

The individual commenter requested that the FAA AD become a stand-alone document. The individual commented that relying on EASA's AD as the base document, and providing exceptions in the FAA's rule, makes the requirements unclear and confusing. The commenter further stated that the AD should comply with plain language guidelines in FAA Order 1000.36.

The FAA disagrees with the request. In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. This AD incorporates EASA AD 2024-0139 by reference. Incorporating information by reference is a common method of federal rulemaking, that is explicitly permitted under 1 CFR 51. As stated in the Incorporation by Reference Handbook, June 2023 Edition, incorporation of relevant, usually technical information (such as the MCAI) promotes efficiency. The commenter did not identify a provision of FAA Order 1000.36A that the IBR practice violates, and none are apparent to the FAA. The complete inspection method, measurable thresholds, and corrective actions are included in EASA AD 2024-0139 and the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0139, which are available at regulations.gov under the Docket No. for this AD, FAA-2025-1735. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

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

The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2024-0139, which specifies procedures for amending the rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) and installing a placard to add a speed limitation. EASA AD 2024-0139 allows exceeding the speed limitation on certain maintenance flights and specifies accomplishing an inspection after each flight where the speed is exceeded. EASA AD 2024-0139 also requires repetitively inspecting the right-hand external side around the two top screws of certain upper fin spars for a crack. EASA AD 2024-0139 specifies that installing an upper fin assembly P/N 355A14-0522-1751 constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements and the speed limitations. Lastly, EASA AD 2024-0139 prohibits installing affected upper fin assemblies on any helicopter.

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.

While the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0139 requires accomplishing dye penetrant inspections (DPI), this AD requires a DPI if the affected part has previously been inspected by a DPI method; otherwise, this AD requires a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI).

Where EASA AD 2024-0139 and the material referenced in EASA AD 2024-0139 specifies contacting Airbus Helicopters for repair instructions, this AD requires using a method approved by the FAA, EASA, or Airbus Helicopters' EASA Design Organization Approval.

EASA AD 2024-0139 requires informing all flight crew and operating the helicopter accordingly. However, this AD would not specifically require this action because 14 CFR 91.9 requires that no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the RFM. Therefore, including a requirement in this AD to operate the helicopter according to the revised RFM would be redundant and unnecessary. Further, compliance with such a requirement in an AD would be impracticable to demonstrate or track on an ongoing basis; therefore, a requirement to operate the airplane in such a manner would be unenforceable.

EASA AD 2024-0139 allows a pilot to perform some actions, and this AD does not.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 650 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.

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

The extent of damage found during the required inspection of the vertical fin spar could vary significantly from helicopter to helicopter. The agency has no way of determining how much damage may be found during these inspections, the cost to repair damaged parts of each helicopter, or the number of helicopters that might need these repairs.

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Andrew Othole Memorial Airport, Zuni, NM, to support IFR operations at this airport.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2025-0632 in the Federal Register (90 FR 24355; June 10, 2025) proposing to establish Class E airspace at Zuni, NM. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11K, dated August 4, 2025, and effective September 15, 2025. These amendments will be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. FAA Order JO 7400.11K, which lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points, is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

This action modifies 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within an 8.5-mile radius of Andrew Othole Memorial Airport, Zuni, NM. This action is the result of instrument procedures being developed for this airport to support IFR operations.

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

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1G, “FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures,” paragraph B-2.5(a), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points); and paragraph B-2.5(k), which categorically excludes from further environmental impact review the publication of existing air traffic control procedures that do not essentially change existing tracks, create new tracks, change altitude, or change concentration of aircraft on these tracks. As such, this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

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

On May 7, 2024, HUD published a final rule amending HUD's regulations to implement changes to the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher (PBV) programs made by the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) (89 FR 38224) (FR Doc. 2024-08601) (HOTMA Voucher Final Rule). The HOTMA Voucher Final Rule intended to reduce the burden on public housing agencies, by either modifying requirements or simplifying and clarifying existing regulatory language. On May 28, 2024, HUD published a Correction addressing five errors made in the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule. In reviewing the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule and the Correction, HUD identified additional inadvertent errors as well as provisions with unclear language. This rule corrects the inadvertent errors and clarifies regulatory requirements.

The following is an overview of the changes made to 24 CFR parts 5, 888, 903, 982, 983, and 985 in this final rule.

This final rule revises the definition of “Responsible entity” in part 5, subparts A and E. In the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule, HUD intended to amend the definitions to remove reference to the certificate program only. However, HUD inadvertently added a reference to the Section 235 Program in § 5.100 and removed references to several programs in § 5.504. This final rule corrects the definitions.

The HOTMA Voucher Final Rule revised § 888.113(h)(1) to clarify that the PHA and owner may mutually agree to apply Small Area fair market rents (Small Area FMRs) to a PBV project where the project was selected before “either or both” the Small Area FMR designation and the PHA administrative policy. Prior to the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule, the regulatory text only stated “both” which inadvertently created confusion with respect to projects selected between the two events (the Small Area FMR designation and the PHA administrative policy extending Small Area FMRs to future PBV projects). HUD made the technical correction to paragraph (h)(1) to clarify that if the PHA is applying the Small Area FMRs to future PBV projects, the PHA may also establish a policy to extend the use of Small Area FMRs to current PBV projects, including those projects selected after the Small Area FMR designation but prior to the effective date of the PHA administrative policy, if the owner is willing to do so.

HUD has subsequently realized that § 888.113(h)(3) and (4) also require technical corrections. The correction in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) reflects the changes made in the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule. A PHA administering an HCV program in either a metropolitan area not subject to the application of Small Area FMRs or in a non-metropolitan area for which HUD publishes Small Area FMRs may now choose to use Small Area FMRs after notification to HUD; HUD is no longer required to approve such PHA requests to voluntarily use Small Area FMRs, per § 888.113(c)(3).

The correction in § 888.113(h)(4) clarifies that the term “effective date” in regard to the PHA administrative policy means the effective date of the policy in the PHA Administrative Plan that has been formally adopted by the PHA Board of Commissioners or other authorized PHA officials in accordance with 24 CFR 982.54(a). The current regulatory language has created confusion because it does not contemplate a situation where the PHA Board adopts the PBV Small Area FMR policy but provides that the policy does not go into effect until a specific date in the future. For example, the Board adopts the revision to the Administrative Plan on September 7, 2025, but provides in the revised Administrative Plan that the effective date of the new PBV Small Area FMR policy is January 1, 2026. HUD is concerned the existing text could be misconstrued to mean HUD is prohibiting the Board from establishing a future effective date beyond the actual date upon which Board formally adopted the proposed PBV Small Area FMR revision to the Administrative Plan, which was not the intent and which is clarified in this final rule.

In this final rule, HUD is simplifying the language of § 903.7(b)(3) by putting a sentence into list format.

Section 982.205(a)(2)(i) and (ii) are amended to clarify that the reference to the PBV waiting list includes any owner-maintained waiting list. This clarifying language was added throughout the PBV regulations in the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule but was inadvertently left out of the HCV regulations. The correction does not add any new requirements. 1

24 CFR 982.404(d) was added in the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule to explain remedies for Housing Quality Standards (HQS) deficiencies identified during inspections other than the initial inspection, because initial inspections have separate requirements; generally, the unit must have no deficiencies before the family can move to and be assisted in the unit, but the PHA may use the alternative inspection option, the non-life-threatening (NLT) deficiencies option, or both (24 CFR 982.405(j), 982.406(e)-(f)) to enable the assisted tenancy to begin earlier. In creating this regulatory structure, HUD did not include a provision mirroring 24 CFR 982.404(d)(3), respecting families' protection from and options for lease termination during a period of withholding or abatement, in each of the paragraphs governing the inspection flexibilities for tenant-based HCV. The inspection flexibilities are governed by parallel provisions in the PBV program, and all of those PBV provisions (24 CFR 983.103(c)(2)(vi), (c)(3)(viii), and (c)(4)(vi)) do contain a provision mirroring 24 CFR 982.404(d)(3). The omission from 24 CFR 982.405(j), 982.406(e)-(f) is corrected in this final rule by the addition of new paragraphs at §§ 982.405(j)(7), 982.406(e)(7), and 982.406(f)(7). The new paragraphs do not add new requirements. They mirror the existing § 982.404(d)(3) and are included in §§ 982.405-406 for clarity and consistency.

Additionally, HUD is clarifying the description of the PHA policy on termination after a prolonged period of deficiencies in §§ 982.405(j)(6)(ii), 982.406(e)(6)(ii), and 982.406(f)(6)(ii) by changing “The date by which” to “The number of days after which”. This language mirrors the project-based voucher regulations. HUD believes the new language is clearer and also avoids implying by differing language that the PHA is required to enact different policies depending on the type of inspection flexibility and program (tenant-based vs. project-based).

In the Final HOTMA Voucher Rule, HUD made changes to the definitions of “independent entity” in § 982.4 but failed to make the mirroring changes to § 983.3. The definitions should be the same. The § 983.3 definitions should read: “ Independent entity. See 24 CFR 982.4”.

In the Final HOTMA Voucher Rule, HUD established provisions in § 983.103(c) for initial inspections of existing housing using the NLT option, the alternative inspections option, and the use of both of the foregoing options together. In doing so, each option is described separately in paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4), with each laying out the process to execute the HAP contract, inspect and correct deficiencies, occupy, make housing assistance payments (HAP), and remedy continued deficiencies for the PBV units under the option. In some cases, a provision expressly referencing an aspect of the process was unintentionally omitted from one or two options or differed from option to option in a manner that could be misinterpreted as substantively different requirements. HUD is resolving the discrepancies here to ensure the regulations accurately reflect the intended consistency between the three options on matters that are applicable to more than one option. These revisions do not substantively change the regulations, but rather provide consistent verbiage and structure to prevent confusion when following the regulatory requirements.

In codifying provisions of HOTMA that had not previously been implemented, the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule was intended to align corresponding PBV and HCV regulations, except where a provision was inapplicable to one of the programs. Consequently, § 983.208(d)(3) should mirror § 982.404(d)(3) to require families to notify both the PHA and owner of termination of tenancy. Section 983.208(d)(3) is amended here to align with the HCV provision at § 982.404(d)(3), which correctly reflects that notification to the PHA is necessary for the PHA to continue a family's assistance when the family terminates its assisted tenancy in a unit to which HAPs are abated due to HQS deficiencies. HUD believes the public would have expected reference to this necessary step to comprehensively codify this operation in the regulatory text and makes this change accordingly.

This final rule amends § 983.212(a)(3)(iii)(C) to add clarifying language which matches the corresponding provision in § 983.157(g)(6)(iii)(C). HUD is also correcting a reference from paragraph (b)(1) to (b)(6).

24 CFR 983.260(c)(1) was intended to only apply where a PHA made an offer of continued housing assistance under § 983.260(b)(1), not where a PHA takes action under § 983.260(b)(2). While this limited applicability is implied by the inclusion of different procedural requirements in § 983.260(b)(2), this rule adds clarifying language to § 983.260(c)(1) to ensure there is no ambiguity regarding the inapplicability of the provision to actions taken under § 983.260(b)(2).

This final rule updates language to ensure the consistent use of the term “the proposal or project selection date.” Additionally, § 983.3(b) is amended to use this term instead of “the date of selection.” §§ 983.51 and 983.204 are amended to clarify requirements that apply to both the proposal or project selection date and/or to switch the order of the words “project” and “proposal” for consistent use of the term “the proposal or project selection date”.

This final rule amends §§ 983.3(b) and 983.212(a) to clarify the distinction between completing substantial improvement and development activity for units under a HAP contract. The intention of the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule, as stated in its preamble, was to create separate, distinct processes for completing development activity versus substantial improvement. The current language of § 983.212 provides that development activity is an exception to the option to conduct substantial improvement which could be interpreted as allowing the same work to qualify as both, which would result in the work being disallowed under either process. This final rule clarifies the two distinct processes for completing substantial improvements and development activity for units under a HAP contract.

HUD is also making a number of technical corrections in this final rule. In § 983.51, HUD is adding the word “and” between paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii) to clarify that the paragraphs are a list. In § 983.59, HUD is removing the duplicative word “or” from paragraph (b)(2)(ii) in the list made up of paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-(iv) and removing the capitalization of the word “for” in paragraphs 983.59(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(2)(iii)(C).

In § 983.153(c)(1), HUD is updating an incorrect reference from 983.157(a) to 983.157(b)(2) to correctly cite the paragraph referring to development activity occurring before an Agreement or HAP contract. HUD is also updating a reference in § 983.262(d)(3)(iii) on supporting services from paragraph(c)(2) to (d)(3)(ii). This final rule will correct the citation in § 985.3 from “2 CFR Subpart F” to “2 CFR part 200, subpart F”.

In § 982.4 and § 982.516, HUD is correcting paragraph numbering.

Finally, HUD is correcting words that were inadvertently left out of paragraphs or wrongly included. Section 983.103(c)(4) is missing the word “inspection”. Section 983.206(b)(3) incorrectly referred to “tenant-based utilities” when it should refer to “tenant-paid utilities”.

In general, HUD publishes a rule for public comments before issuing a rule for effect, in accordance with HUD's regulations on rulemaking at 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the general rule where HUD finds that public comment would be “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest” (24 CFR 10.1).

HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this final rule for effect without first soliciting public comments. The amendments made in this rule are technical, to provide further clarity, and correct grammar and references. Furthermore, HUD believes that the public comments submitted in response to the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule on these topics, and HUD's responses to public comments provide HUD with a solid basis to make the conforming changes in this final rule.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Under Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), a determination must be made whether a regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the order. In this final rule, HUD is making technical corrections and clarifying amendments to avoid potential confusion. The changes are technical in nature; HUD is not introducing any new regulatory changes or rationales that differ in substance from the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule. This rule was not subject to OMB review. This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not an economically significant regulatory action.

Executive Order 14192 (Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation) requires that any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior regulations. This interim final rule reduces regulatory burden because it makes amendments clarifying existing regulations.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule makes clarifying amendments. It does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments nor does it preempt state law within the meaning of the Executive Order.

In assessing the environmental impact of the HOTMA Voucher Final Rule, HUD prepared a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part 50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). The FONSI is available online at www.regulations.gov. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(4) this notice is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321).

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because HUD has determined that good cause exists to issue this rule without prior public comment, this rule is not subject to the requirement to publish an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the RFA as part of such action.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, HUD amends 24 CFR parts 5, 888, 903, 982, 983, and 985 as follows:

The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.701 for the San Juan Harbor Christmas Boat Parade regulated area identified in table 1 to § 100.701, paragraph (a), Item 11, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. on December 13, 2025. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for recurring marine events, Seventh Coast Guard District, § 100.701, paragraph (a), Item 11, specifies the location of the regulated area for the San Juan Harbor Christmas Boat Parade, which encompasses portions of the San Juan Harbor located in San Juan, PR. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.701(c) all persons and vessels are prohibited from entering the regulated area, except those persons and vessels participating in the event, unless they receive permission to do so from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, or designated representative.

Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area without approval from the Coast Guard Patrol Commander or a designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

The Coast Guard received notification of a fire onboard the vessel M/V ONE HENRY HUDSON in the Port of Los Angeles. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Los Angeles—Long Beach has determined that potential hazards associated with the fire and response operations are a safety concern for anyone within a 0.5 nautical mile radius of the vessel. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034, which is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule without prior notice and comment. As is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by November 28, 2025, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds that under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register .

This rule establishes a safety zone from noon on November 28, 2025, through noon on December 28, 2025. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 0.5 nautical mile radius of the M/V ONE HENRY HUDSON. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or their designated representative.

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

The regulatory flexibility analysis provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to rules that are not subject to notice and comment. Because the Coast Guard has, for good cause, waived the notice and comment requirement that would otherwise apply to this rulemaking, the Regulatory Flexibility Act's flexibility analysis provisions do not apply here.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), if this rule will affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards by calling 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in that Order.

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

As required by The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Coast Guard certifies that this rule will not result in an annual expenditure of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted for inflation) by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.

This rule is a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a)—establishing a safety zone—of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

EPA is issuing this rulemaking under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .”

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. If you fail to file an objection to the final rule within the time period specified in the final rule, you will have waived the right to raise any issues resolved in the final rule. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2024-0460 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before February 6, 2026.

The EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), in which the Hearing Clerk is housed, urges parties to file and serve documents by electronic means only, notwithstanding any other particular requirements set forth in other procedural rules governing those proceedings. See “Revised Order Urging Electronic Filing and Service,” dated June 22, 2023, which can be found at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/2023-06-22%20-%20revised%20order%20urging%20electronic%20filing%20and%20service.pdf. Although the EPA's regulations require submission via U.S. Mail or hand delivery, the EPA intends to treat submissions filed via electronic means as properly filed submissions; therefore, the EPA believes the preference for submission via electronic means will not be prejudicial. When submitting documents to the OALJ electronically, a person should utilize the OALJ e-filing system at https://yosemite.epa.gov/OA/EAB/EAB-ALJ_Upload.nsf.

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. If you wish to include CBI in your request, please follow the applicable instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets#rules and clearly mark the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice.

In the Federal Register of July 3, 2025 (90 FR 29515) (FRL-12474-05 OCSPP), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 4E9103) by the American Spice Trade Association (1101 17th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036). The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.507 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide azoxystrobin in or on pepper, black at 1 part per million (ppm). That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and included in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified therein, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for azoxystrobin, including exposure resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with azoxystrobin follows.

In an effort to streamline its publications in the Federal Register , EPA is not reprinting sections that repeat what has been previously published for tolerance rulemakings of the same pesticide chemical. Where scientific information concerning a particular chemical remains unchanged, the content of those sections would not vary between tolerance rulemaking, and EPA considers referral back to those sections as sufficient to provide an explanation of the information EPA considered in making its safety determination for the new rulemaking.

EPA has previously published several tolerance rulemakings for azoxystrobin in which EPA concluded, based on the available information, that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm would result from aggregate exposure to azoxystrobin and established tolerances for residues of that chemical. EPA is incorporating previously published sections from these rulemakings as described further in this rulemaking, as they remain unchanged.

Specific information on the risk assessment conducted in support of this action can be found in the document titled “ Azoxystrobin. Human Health Risk Assessment for the Establishment of Tolerance without U.S. registration for Residues in/on Pepper, Black ” and the documents cited therein, which are available in the docket for this action at https://www.regulations.gov.

For a discussion of the toxicological profile of azoxystrobin, see Unit III.A. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57333) (FRL-9985-45).

For a summary of the toxicological points of departure/levels of concern used for the risk assessment, see Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57333) (FRL-9985-45).

For a description of EPA's approach to and assumptions used for the hazard assessment and residential exposure assessment for azoxystrobin, see Unit III.C. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57333) (FRL-9985-45) and for the dietary and aggregate assessments see the final rule published in the Federal Register of March 20, 2023 (88 FR 16570) (FRL-10603-01), along with the updates described below.

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. EPA's dietary exposure assessments have been updated to include the additional exposure associated with the petitioned-for tolerance. For the acute dietary exposure assessment, EPA used tolerance-level residues for all commodities, except citrus fruits (which used the highest residues from residue trials), 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for all commodities, and default processing factors with the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM 4.02) for all commodities except where tolerances were established for processed commodities, and utilizing USDA NHANES/WWEIA food consumption data (2005-2010). For the chronic dietary exposure assessment, EPA used tolerance-level residues for all commodities, 100 PCT for all commodities, and default processing factors with DEEM for all commodities except where tolerances were established for processed commodities.

2. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. Section 408(b)(2)(E) of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section 408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action, EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of these tolerances.

EPA did not use PCT information in the dietary exposure assessment for azoxystrobin. 100 PCT was assumed for all food commodities.

3. Drinking water exposure. Drinking water exposures are not impacted by this action, which is for a tolerance without a corresponding U.S. registration ( i.e., an import tolerance). The estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of azoxystrobin are 69.4 parts per billion (ppb) for acute exposure and 20.7 ppb for chronic exposure, which were calculated with the Surface Water Concentration Calculator.

4. Non-occupational exposure. Non-occupational/residential exposures are not impacted by the import tolerance in this action. Azoxystrobin is currently registered for use on turf, ornamentals, and antimicrobial uses as a materials preservative in paints and plastics that could result in residential exposures. The residential risk estimate that was used in the aggregate assessment is hand-to-mouth incidental oral exposures to preserved vinyl flooring for children aged 1 to less than 2 years old.

5. Cumulative exposures. FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to azoxystrobin and any other substances, and azoxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that azoxystrobin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) safety factor. In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

EPA continues to conclude that there is reliable data to support the reduction of the FQPA safety factor to 1X for all exposure scenarios except acute exposure. For assessing acute dietary risk, EPA continues to retain an FQPA safety factor of 3X. See Unit III.D. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57333) (FRL-9985-45) for a discussion of the Agency's rationale for that determination.

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure (PODs) to ensure that an adequate margin of exposure (MOE) exists.

1. Acute risk. Acute dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the aPAD; they are 29% of the aPAD for children 1 to 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

2. Chronic risk. Chronic dietary risks are below the Agency's level of concern of 100% of the cPAD; they are 66% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.

3. Short- and intermediate-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

The Agency analyzed short-term aggregate risk by aggregating chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure with incidental oral hand-to-mouth post-application exposure to children 1 to less than 2 years old from preserved vinyl flooring uses of azoxystrobin. The combined short-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 200 for children 1 to less than 2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. Because EPA's level of concern for azoxystrobin is an MOE of less than 100, this MOE is not of concern.

Intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Because no intermediate-term adverse effect was identified, azoxystrobin is not expected to pose an intermediate-term risk. Therefore, the intermediate-term aggregate risk would be equivalent to the chronic dietary exposure estimate.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, azoxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

5. Determination of safety. Based on the risk assessments and information described above, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to azoxystrobin residues.

For a discussion of the available analytical enforcement method, see Unit IV.A. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of November 15, 2018 (83 FR 57333) (FRL-9985-45). The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: residuemethods@epa.gov.

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). Codex is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level. The Codex has not established a MRL for azoxystrobin in or on black pepper.

In general, a tolerance action is effective on the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register . For actions in the final rule that lower or revoke existing tolerances, EPA will set an expiration date for the existing tolerance of six months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register , in order to allow a reasonable interval for producers in exporting members of the World Trade Organization's (WTO's) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Agreement to adapt to the requirements.

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of azoxystrobin in or on pepper, black at 1 ppm.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), because it establishes or modifies a pesticide tolerance or a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408 in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866.

Executive Order 14192 (90 FR 9065, February 6, 2025) does not apply because actions that establish a tolerance under FFDCA section 408 are exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because it does not contain any information collection activities.

Since tolerance actions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply to this action.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars and adjusted annually for inflation) as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 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.

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because tolerance actions like this one are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. However, EPA's 2021 Policy on Children's Health applies to this action. This rule finalizes tolerance actions under the FFDCA, which requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .” (FFDCA 408(b)(2)(C)). The Agency's consideration is summarized in Unit III.E.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355) (May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This action does not involve technical standards that would require Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., 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).

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

Atlantic BFT fisheries are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments, pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ) and consistent with the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ). HMS implementing regulations are at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27(a) divides the U.S. BFT quota, established by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and as implemented by the United States among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS is required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1854(g)(1)(D) to provide U.S. fishing vessels with a reasonable opportunity to harvest quotas under relevant international fishery agreements such as the ICCAT Convention, which is implemented domestically pursuant to ATCA.

Under § 635.28(a)(1), NMFS files a closure action with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota (or subquota) is reached or is projected to be reached. Retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited on or after the effective date and time of a closure action for that category until the opening of the relevant subsequent quota period or until such date as specified.

As described in § 635.27(a), the current baseline U.S. BFT quota is 1,316.14 metric tons (mt) (not including the 25 mt ICCAT allocated to the United States to account for bycatch of BFT in pelagic longline fisheries in the Northeast Distant Gear Restricted Area per § 635.27(a)(3)). The General category baseline quota is 710.7 mt. The General category baseline quota is suballocated to time periods. Relevant to this action, the baseline subquota for the December time period is 37 mt. To date for 2025, NMFS published one action that adjusted the General category December 2025 time period subquota to 16.5 mt (90 FR 2638, January 13, 2025).

To date, reported landings for the BFT General category December time period total 12.6 mt. As described above, the adjusted subquota for the December time period is 16.5 mt. However, landings estimates from 2024 indicate that the General, Harpoon, and Angling category quotas were exceeded. Additionally, the 2025 General category January through March time period subquota was exceeded. Thus, under § 635.27(a)(9) and consistent with ICCAT requirements, in order to ensure the overall U.S. quota is not exceeded, NMFS expects to take action at a later date to reduce the various category quotas for 2025 consistent with the estimated overharvest. While that action is not yet final, NMFS must still consider the implications of reduced quotas for various categories, including the General category. If both the 2024 and 2025 U.S. adjusted quotas are exceeded, under ICCAT requirements, the United States could be required to pay back 125 percent of the second year's (2025) overharvest in 2026.

Based on that consideration and the current landings data, as well as average catch rates and anticipated fishing conditions, NMFS has determined that the December time period subquota is projected to be reached and exceeded shortly. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant ( i.e., measuring 73 inches (185 cm) CFL or greater) BFT by persons aboard vessels permitted in the Atlantic Tunas General category and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels (while fishing commercially) must cease at 11:30 p.m., local time on December 5, 2025.

Pursuant to Executive Order 14276, “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” (April 17, 2025), NMFS is making prudent efforts to identify strategies to expand fishing opportunities within the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Should NMFS determine that reasonable fishing opportunities are available at a later date, NMFS may reopen the 2025 December fishery. The BFT General category will automatically reopen January 1, 2026, for the 2026 fishing year January through March time period. This action applies to Atlantic Tunas General category (commercial) permitted vessels and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessels with a commercial sale endorsement when fishing commercially for BFT and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

NMFS will continue to monitor the BFT fisheries closely. Per § 635.5(b)(2)(i)(A), dealers are required to submit landing reports within 24 hours of a dealer receiving BFT. Late reporting by dealers compromises NMFS' ability to timely implement actions such as quota and retention limit adjustments, as well as closures, and may result in enforcement actions. Additionally, and separate from the dealer reporting requirement, General category and HMS Charter/Headboat permitted vessel owners are required per § 635.5(a)(4) to report their own catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/home, using the HMS Catch Reporting app, or calling 888-872-8862 (Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time).

After the fishery reopens on January 1, 2026, depending on the level of fishing effort and catch rates of BFT, NMFS may determine that adjustments are necessary to ensure available subquotas are not exceeded in 2026 or to enhance scientific data collection from, and fishing opportunities in, all geographic areas as specified under § 635.27(a)(7). If needed, subsequent adjustments will be published in the Federal Register . In addition, fishermen may access https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/home, for updates on quota monitoring and inseason adjustments.

NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(d)) and regulations at 50 CFR part 635 and this action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

The Assistant Administrator for NMFS (AA) finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice of, and an opportunity for public comment on, this action because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons. Specifically, the regulations implementing the HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. Providing prior notice and an opportunity to comment is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as this fishery is currently underway and, based on the most recent landings information, the 2025 December subquota is projected to be reached shortly. Delaying this action could result in BFT landings that exceed the final 2025 General category quota, which may result in future potential quota reductions for other BFT categories or the General category quota, depending on the magnitude of a potential December subquota overharvest. NMFS notes that the public had an opportunity to comment on the underlying rulemakings that established the U.S. BFT quota and the inseason adjustment and closure criteria.

For all of the above reasons, the AA also finds that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effective date.