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 at the affected airport to support IFR operations.

The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2024-2305 in the Federal Register (89 FR 80430; October 3, 2024) proposing to establish Class E airspace at Washburn, ND. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received supporting this action. No response is provided.

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 amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile radius of Washburn Municipal Airport, Washburn, ND.

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

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

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

FAA is revising its regulations to add subpart X to 14 CFR part 93 that will permanently implement certain flight restrictions in the airspace over the Potomac River near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). These revisions are necessary to mitigate the potential for midair collisions resulting from insufficient separation between fixed-wing aircraft operating to or from DCA and helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode near DCA. The revisions will also fully implement a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety recommendation.

Specifically, helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode may only conduct essential operations in the area between the Memorial Bridge, Hains Point, and the Wilson Bridge as defined in new § 93.373. These requirements are effective immediately.

When helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode must conduct essential operations in this area designated in § 93.373, air traffic control (ATC) will manage fixed-wing traffic to restrict traffic from entering the special flight rules area. This includes local procedures which restrict the use of Runways 15/33 or 4/22 for arrivals or departures when excepted helicopter/powered-lift aircraft are operating within the area.

For the purposes of this subpart, and as described in § 93.375, FAA recognizes the following operations as essential: lifesaving medical, active law enforcement, active national security, continuity activities for the Federal government, or transportation for the President or Vice President of the United States (U.S.). Routine training, proficiency evaluation flights, and other flights for transportation of personnel that are not involved in an essential operation, as previously described, are not essential operations. In short, essential helicopter operations in this area should be exceedingly rare.

Through this rule, FAA is also amending the authority citation for 14 CFR part 93 to remove the citation to 49 U.S.C. 106(g) to reflect amendments resulting from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. 1

FAA is adopting this interim final rule without prior notice and prior public comment to enact measures to mitigate the unacceptable risk of midair collisions near DCA resulting from insufficient separation immediately. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.6B, Policies and Procedures for Rulemaking, 2 provides that issuing substantive rules without completing notice and comment is an exception and not favored. Accordingly, FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from this interim final rule. FAA will replace this IFR with a final rule at the earliest opportunity following a review of comments received.

See the “Additional Information” section for information on how to comment on this interim final rule and how FAA will handle comments received. The “Additional Information” section also contains related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 49 U.S.C. subtitle I, section 106, which describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of FAA's authority.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace, and subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. Under section 40103, FAA is charged with prescribing regulations on: (1) the flight of aircraft, including regulations on safe altitudes; (2) the navigation, protection, and identification of aircraft; (3) the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace, and (4) preventing collision between aircraft. Under section 44701, FAA is charged 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 and national security.

This interim final rule is within the scope of sections 40103 and 44701 because it mitigates the potential for midair collisions near DCA and addresses an urgent NTSB safety recommendation to ensure safety in air commerce near DCA.

Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking. In addition, 5 U.S.C. 553(d) generally requires the publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date, but section 553(d)(3) provides an exception to this general requirement when the agency finds good cause to waive the delay in the effective date.

On January 29, 2025, a helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft collided near DCA. The collision resulted in the deaths of all 67 passengers and crew aboard both aircraft. In response, FAA issued a temporary flight restriction (TFR) that effectively closed Washington Route 4 between Hains Point and the Wilson Bridge. Subsequently, the NTSB identified several critical safety concerns and made two urgent safety recommendations to prevent future accidents. 3 One of these urgent safety recommendations includes the FAA's prohibition of helicopters on Washington Route 4 between Hains Point and the Wilson Bridge when Runways 15 and 33 are being used for departures and arrivals at DCA, respectively, because the separation distances are insufficient. This rule fully and permanently implements the FAA's interim steps and this urgent NTSB safety recommendation because it prohibits non-essential helicopter and powered-lift operating in vertical-lift flight mode traffic on and near the closed portion of Washington Route 4 and extends the prohibition over a broader area, regardless of runway use. The NTSB recommendations are discussed in greater detail in section IV of this preamble. The rule only allows essential operations over the Potomac River near DCA by helicopter and powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode. When there is an essential operation within the Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA), ATC will manage fixed-wing traffic to restrict the use of Runways 15/33 or 4/22 for arrivals or departures at DCA. 4

Currently, FAA has imposed TFRs for helicopters in the area over the Potomac River near DCA (See IV. Background); however, these TFRs are meant to address emergency conditions that preclude normal flight operations. FAA issued the current TFR as a temporary measure to mitigate the collision risk near DCA and implement the NTSB safety recommendations. TFRs, by their nature, are not a permanent solution to address the conditions near DCA. In light of the need for a permanent solution to alleviate the risk of midair collisions, FAA finds prior notice and comment are impracticable, as delaying the effectiveness of this rule and allowing the current TFR to lapse could result in a similar accident or incident as occurred on January 29, 2025. However, recognizing that members of the public may wish to provide comments, FAA is accepting comments related to this interim final rule. Further, for these same reasons, FAA finds good cause exists to waive the delay in the effective date and make this rule immediately effective.

Regarding the revision to the authority citation for 14 CFR part 93, this technical amendment simply implements statutory changes that are already effective. 5 This amendment constitutes “a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”  6 This amendment will not impose any additional substantive restrictions or requirements on the persons affected by these regulations. Because the authority citation revision merely makes technical amendments, FAA finds notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) unnecessary. FAA also finds there is good cause to waive the delay in the effective date.

At the time of the January 29, 2025 collision, a variety of aircraft operated within the airspace near DCA, including fixed-wing airplanes, helicopters, and powered-lift. While a variety of aircraft operated in the airspace over the Potomac River near DCA, the number of operations was already limited by the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA). 7 The Washington, DC Metropolitan Area SFRA levies operating requirements within 30 nautical miles (NM) of the DCA Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) for reasons of national security. 8 The area of the flight restriction designated in this rule is wholly contained within the Washington, DC Metropolitan Area SFRA and adds additional flight restrictions that limit the types of operations for helicopters and powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode over the Potomac River near DCA to enhance safety by limiting these operations to only those that are essential.

In addition, DCA had and continues to have three operational runways. Runway 01/19 is DCA's most used runway and is 7,169 feet long. Runway 15/33 has the second-most use and is 5,204 feet long. Runway 04/22 is 5,000 feet long.

Further, as depicted on the Baltimore-Washington Helicopter Route Chart, there were a variety of helicopter routes near DCA at the time of the collision. 9 Each of the 23 Washington helicopter routes on the chart has specific operating altitudes and communication requirements. As applicable to this interim final rule, the chart displays the routes (or excerpts of specific routes over the Potomac River near DCA) described below and the associated altitudes for each portion of the route. The route descriptions below reflect the routes in place at the time of the collision (published on December 26, 2024). This rule uses the route information in place at the time of the collision for consistency with terminology in the NTSB's recommendation.

Washington Route 1 begins at the American Legion Bridge over the Potomac River, to the Tidal Basin east of Roosevelt Island, over the Washington Channel to the Anacostia River, then northeast over the Anacostia River. The operating altitude for the route north of the Wilson Bridge is at or below 200 feet mean sea level (MSL).

Washington Route 4 began at Fort Washington, south of the Wilson Bridge over the Potomac River, to the Wilson Bridge (where Washington Route 4 crosses west-to-east Route 3), then via the East Bank of the Potomac River near DCA to the Anacostia River, where Washington Route 4 intercepted Washington Route 1. The operating altitude for the route between the Key Bridge and the James Creek Marina (northeast of Hains Point) was at or below 200 feet MSL.

Washington Route 6, near DCA, from east to west, was from the Woods Corner reporting point, to the Bolling reporting point (in the vicinity of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling), to Abingdon Plantation (directly adjacent to the west of DCA), to direct Glebe Road (near the intersection of Glebe Road and Interstate 395). The operating altitude for the route between the Bolling and Glebe Road reporting points and over DCA was 1,500 feet MSL. All other operating altitudes were at or below 1,400 feet MSL.

On January 29, 2025, a Sikorsky UH-60L, operated by the U.S. Army under the callsign PAT25, was traveling south on Washington Route 4. Simultaneously, a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) RJ Aviation (formerly Bombardier) CL-600-2C10 (CRJ700), U.S. aircraft registration N709PS, operated by PSA Airlines as flight 5342, was preparing to land on DCA Runway 33. At about 2048 eastern standard time (EST), PAT25 and PSA Airlines flight 5342 collided in flight approximately 0.5 miles southeast of DCA in Arlington, Virginia, and impacted the Potomac River in southwest Washington, DC The collision occurred at an altitude of approximately 300 feet. All 67 individuals aboard both aircraft were killed in the crash.

Following the collision, FAA issued a TFR, via Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) Flight Data Center (FDC) 5/9030, pursuant to § 91.137(a)(2) to provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster relief aircraft. 10 This TFR prohibited helicopter traffic from operating over the Potomac River near DCA from the surface up to and including 17,999 feet MSL, with exceptions for lifesaving medical, active law enforcement, active air defense, or Presidential transport missions. This effectively closed Washington Route 4 near DCA. As stated in the NOTAM, in the event one of the excepted missions must occur, civilian aircraft would not be allowed in the area until completion of the excepted operation to mitigate the risk of potential conflicts near DCA.

On March 11, 2025, the NTSB announced that it issued an urgent Safety Recommendation Report, entitled Deconflict Airplane and Helicopter Traffic in the Vicinity of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, containing two urgent safety recommendations and an Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report. 11   12   13 In its urgent Safety Recommendation Report, the NTSB urged FAA to take immediate action on two urgent safety recommendations, A-25-001 and A-25-002, concerning the potential for midair collisions between traffic on helicopter Washington Route 4 and airplanes landing on Runway 33 or departing from Runway 15 at DCA.

The NTSB expressed its concerns that “the existing separation distances between helicopter traffic operating on Washington Route 4 and aircraft landing on Runway 33 are insufficient and pose an intolerable risk to aviation safety by increasing the chances of a midair collision.”  14 In particular, the NTSB's Safety Recommendation Report states that at “an altitude of 200 ft, a helicopter operating over the eastern shoreline of the Potomac River would have about 75 ft of vertical separation from an airplane approaching runway 33, and this distance decreases if the helicopter is operated farther from the shoreline.”  15 To further illustrate its concern, the NTSB highlighted additional data on separation distances obtained by FAA analysis of relevant data, showing that in a period of a little over three years, there were “85 recorded events that involved a lateral separation less than 1,500 [feet] and vertical separation less than 200 [feet].”  16

Based on its findings, the NTSB issued two urgent safety recommendations.

• Safety Recommendation A-25-001: Prohibit operations on helicopter Route 4 between Hains Point and the Wilson Bridge when Runways 15 and 33 are being used for departures and arrivals, respectively, at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 17

• Safety Recommendation A-25-002: Designate an alternative helicopter route that can be used to facilitate travel between Hains Point and the Wilson Bridge when that segment of Washington Route 4 is closed. 18

The NTSB went on to explain that when Washington Route 4 operations are prohibited, it restricts “a vital aviation corridor used for law enforcement activity, Coast Guard patrols, and continuity of government operations.” Moreover, the NTSB stated that “[c]ontinued access to the most direct course possible is critical for these operations. In addition, mandating that controllers hold helicopters in place north or south of DCA while airplanes are operating on [R]unway 15/33 has the potential to increase risk by adding to controller workload.”  19

On March 13, 2025, FAA published changes to Washington Route 4 and Washington Route 6. 20   21   22 The changes formally removed portions of Washington Routes 4 and 6 near arrival and departure traffic of fixed-wing aircraft operating to or from DCA to mitigate the potential for insufficient separation with helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode.

On May 2, 2025, the NTSB closed Safety Recommendation A-25-001, stating it believed FAA's actions to date exceeded the intent of the recommendation. 23 FAA's actions included removing a section of helicopter Washington Route 4 and limiting certain runway use at DCA during specific limited helicopter operations in the vicinity of DCA. 24

In addition, since the initial NOTAM, FAA has issued revisions of the flight restriction to refine the lateral boundaries, reduce the vertical dimensions from 17,999 feet MSL to 10,000 feet MSL, and clarify the restrictions imposed as the disaster relief operations near DCA changed. The most recent version of the NOTAM, FDC 5/6468, issued on November 14, 2025 pursuant to § 91.139, contains the same exceptions for lifesaving medical, active law enforcement, active air defense, or Presidential transport missions. The NOTAM continues to define the lateral and vertical dimensions of the area and lists the restrictions imposed.

This interim final rule, issued in alignment with FAA's correspondence to NTSB  25 and the NTSB findings, permanently and fully implements NTSB Safety Recommendation A-25-001 to mitigate the potential for midair collisions due to insufficient separation between traffic on Washington Route 4 and airplanes landing on Runway 33 or departing from Runway 04 or Runway 15 at DCA. FAA is addressing NTSB Safety Recommendation A-25-002 in another effort beyond the scope of this rule.

To mitigate the potential for midair collisions near DCA and implement NTSB Safety Recommendation A-25-001, FAA is adding subpart X to part 93 to implement flight restrictions in the airspace over the Potomac River near DCA permanently.

NTSB Safety Recommendation A-25-001 recommended prohibiting operations on helicopter Washington Route 4 between Hains Point and the Wilson Bridge when Runway 15 and Runway 33 are being used for departures and arrivals, respectively, at DCA. This rule applies to the types of aircraft that operate in the area defined in § 91.373. As stated in § 93.371, this rule applies to helicopters and powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode. In addition to the 14 CFR 1.1 definition of powered-lift, 26 the vertical-lift flight mode for powered-lift is currently defined in 14 CFR 194.103 as a flight mode where a powered lift is “in a configuration that allows vertical takeoff, vertical landing, and low-speed flight” and depends “principally on engine-driven lift devices or engine thrust for lift.”

Prior to the midair collision on January 29, 2025, a mix of fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter, and powered-lift operations occurred simultaneously near DCA. Due to the midair collision resulting from insufficient separation between mixed operations, FAA determined it needed to address traffic operating on Washington Route 4 as well as traffic over the Potomac River near DCA. As of March 13, 2025, Washington Route 4 only exists south of the Memorial Bridge. 27 Similar to the previously issued NOTAMs, this rule establishes a flight restriction in the area between the Memorial Bridge, Hains Point, and the Wilson Bridge (Area).

FAA considers restricting airspace to be an extraordinary remedy to be applied only when truly necessary. FAA must consider other statutory mandates (1) to ensure the safe and efficient use of airspace, 28 and (2) to ensure the public right of transit. 29 As such, the specified lateral dimensions of the flight restriction only cover the area necessary to mitigate the risk of insufficient separation distances between mixed traffic, where helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode would be laterally and vertically near DCA's runways. FAA defined the Area narrowly to provide adequate airspace for users to conduct non-essential operations near but outside the Area defined in this rule. For example, operators that previously conducted operations in the Area can still use proximal airspace for non-essential operations, which provides training benefits. Because some government agencies must conduct operations near DCA, FAA also consulted with those other government agencies, including the Department of War and other security stakeholders, when developing the lateral dimensions.

The lateral dimensions of the Area align with temporary restrictions issued by FAA, with the exception of the airspace near DCA's Terminal A. The U.S. Coast Guard bases aircraft at DCA near Terminal A and must conduct routine, non-essential operations in the airspace near DCA. These operations occur far enough away from the runways at issue that they do not pose the same risk for insufficient separation distances. This rule excludes that airspace from these restrictions to allow continued U.S. Coast Guard helicopter operations.

This rule also addresses traffic operating from the surface up to and including 1,500 feet MSL. This altitude, while more permissive than FAA-issued temporary restrictions currently in place, aligns with typical operations by helicopters and powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode near DCA thus it does not pose the same risk for insufficient separation distances.

Section 93.373 provides the horizontal and vertical dimensions of this Area FAA is designating as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Flight Restrictions Area.

To permanently address NTSB's Safety Recommendation A-25-001 and address the potential for midair collisions due to insufficient separation near DCA, § 93.375(a) prohibits any person from operating helicopters and powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode in the Area, unless it is an essential operation. This restricts all use by these aircraft in this Area, regardless of runway use at DCA.

When the operator of a helicopter or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode must conduct an essential operation in this Area, ATC will manage fixed-wing traffic to restrict the use of Runway 15 and Runway 33 for departures and arrivals, respectively, and Runway 04 for departures at DCA. In combination, these actions should significantly reduce the risk of midair collisions caused by the insufficient separation of mixed traffic operations in the Area.

Due to the proximity of DCA to the U.S. Capitol and other government facilities and the continued need to provide emergency services in the Area, prohibiting all helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode in the defined Area is not feasible. As the NTSB stated, this Area is “a vital aviation corridor used for law enforcement activity, Coast Guard patrols, and continuity of government operations.” Moreover, the NTSB stated “[c]ontinued access to the most direct course possible is critical for these operations.” As such, some essential operations must occur, and paragraph (b) of § 93.375 defines what is an essential operation.

FAA recognizes the following operations as essential: lifesaving medical, active law enforcement involving responses to ongoing criminal activity, active national security directly involving national defense or counterintelligence, continuity activities for the Federal government, or transportation of the President or Vice President of the United States. For purposes of this rule, the essential operations are narrow in scope, intended to enhance safety, and provide for critical services that must occur in this Area or require transit through this Area.

Lifesaving medical operations would generally include those aircraft directly involved in saving lives. Examples would be aviation operations responding to a life-threatening emergency or involving an air ambulance. Active law enforcement operations would include those involving aviation responses to ongoing crime or criminal activity. Active national security operations include those aviation operations that directly involve national defense or counterintelligence, such as countering terrorism or combating espionage. 30 Operations conducted for continuity activities for the Federal government are those aviation activities conducted to ensure the continued operation of essential governmental functions under circumstances including all-hazard emergencies. Examples of all-hazard emergencies include natural disasters, mass-casualty events, and terrorist attacks. These activities may require the movement of certain government officials by aircraft to ensure those officials are able to continue the execution of their national essential functions. 31 Operations to transport the President or Vice President of the United States of America include the aircraft or vehicle involved in transport and necessary supporting aircraft or vehicles. These operations are essential to ensure the integrity of government operations and the security of the President or Vice President.

Though this rule provides for essential operations, the rule does not change existing ATC procedures or operational priority as provided for in FAA orders and directives. FAA notes 14 CFR 93.1 provides ATC the ability to authorize operations in this area. FAA expects ATC could authorize operations not listed in paragraph (b). This could be done in rare and unforeseen circumstances, such as aviation responses to significant emergencies, or disaster recovery operations in response to significant accidents or natural disasters.

Under paragraph (c), essential operations explicitly do not include proficiency evaluation flights, transportation of personnel not directly involved in an essential operation ( e.g., VIP transportation operations other than the President or Vice President), or routine training operations. These types of operations do not fit within the narrow scope of essential operations provided for in this rule considering this rule's purpose of mitigating the risk for midair collisions near DCA. These operations are not critical operations that necessitate the most direct course.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 amended 49 U.S.C. 106 by removing the language previously within subsection (g), modifying it, and moving the modified text to subsection (f). See Public Law 118-63, Sec. 204(b). In addition, the Act designated subsection (g) as reserved. As a result, Section 106(g) no longer provides authority for part 93. To implement this statutory change, this rule revises the authority citation for part 93 to remove the reference to 49 U.S.C. 106(g). No further changes are needed to the authority citation as it already includes a reference to 106(f).

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and E.O. 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

E.O. 14192 (“Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation”), issued January 31, 2025, instructs agencies to “alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.” This rule is exempt from E.O. 14192's requirements because it addresses a critical safety matter.

The rule will mitigate the risk of midair collisions resulting from insufficient separation distances between fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters and powered-lift aircraft operating in the vertical-lift flight mode near DCA by implementing restrictions in the airspace over the Potomac River near DCA. Helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode may only conduct essential operations. When helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode must conduct essential operations in this Area, ATC will manage fixed-wing traffic to restrict the simultaneous use of Runway 15 and Runway 33 for departures and arrivals, respectively, or Runway 04 for departures at DCA.

Prior to the NOTAM, existing operating restrictions at DCA already limited the types of operations near the airport, including in the Area designated in § 93.373. This rule would continue to allow fixed-wing traffic to operate in the Area while limiting operations of helicopters or powered-lift operating in the vertical-lift flight mode if those aircraft must conduct essential operations. FAA defined the Area narrowly to provide adequate airspace for users to conduct non-essential operations near but outside of the Area defined in § 93.373.

Therefore, FAA expects that the flight restrictions in this interim final rule are unlikely to result in additional costs to operators that are more than de minimis. Regardless, FAA expects the benefits of this action to exceed the costs because it will mitigate the risk of fatalities and injuries from a collision between fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters or powered-lift operating near DCA.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), in 5 U.S.C. 603, requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing impacts on small entities whenever 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law requires an agency to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule. Similarly, 5 U.S.C. 604 requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis when an agency issues a final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553 after that section or any other law requires publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking. FAA concludes good cause exists to forgo notice and comment and to not delay the effective date for this rule. As 5 U.S.C. 553 does not require notice and comment in this situation, 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604 similarly do not require regulatory flexibility analyses.

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, they be the basis for U.S. standards.

FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined it ensures the safety of the American public and does not exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, FAA does not consider this rule as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or Tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal government having first provided the funds to pay those costs. FAA determined the rule will not result in the expenditure of $187,000,000 or more ($100,000,000 adjusted for inflation using the most current Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product) by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector, in any one year.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires FAA to consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. FAA has determined there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this interim final rule.

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. FAA has determined there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.

FAA has analyzed the environmental impacts of this rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ). FAA has determined this action of revising its regulations to implement certain restrictions to prohibit mixed traffic operations in the airspace over the Potomac River permanently when Runways 15 and 33 are being used for departures and arrivals at DCA qualifies for categorical exclusion in accordance with NEPA and FAA Order 1050.1G, FAA National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures, paragraph B-2.6 (f)—Regulations, standards, and exemptions (excluding those that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment). Categorical exclusions are categories of actions that the agency has determined normally do not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See DOT Order 5610.1D § 9. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. § 9(b). In accordance with FAA's NEPA implementation policy and procedures regarding extraordinary circumstances, FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further analysis. Accordingly, FAA has determined no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

FAA has analyzed this interim final rule under the principles and criteria of E.O. 13132, Federalism. FAA has determined this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, will not have federalism implications.

Consistent with E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 32 and FAA Order 1210.20, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures, 33 FAA ensures Federally Recognized Tribes (Tribes) are given the opportunity to provide meaningful and timely input regarding proposed Federal actions that have the potential to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes; or to affect uniquely or significantly their respective Tribes. At this point, FAA has not identified any unique or significant effects, environmental or otherwise, on Tribes resulting from this interim final rule.

FAA analyzed this interim final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FAA has determined it is not a “significant energy action” under E.O. 13211 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

E.O. 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of E.O. 13609 and has determined this action will have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. FAA also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this interim final rule. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the interim final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.

FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this interim final rule. Before finalizing this interim final rule, FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. FAA may change this interim final rule in light of the comments received.

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), FAA solicits comments from the public to inform its rulemaking process better. FAA posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this interim final rule contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and is relevant or responsive to this interim final rule, it is important you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this interim final rule. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Any commentary FAA receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

A copy of this interim final rule, all comments received, any final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the docket number listed above. Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded from the Office of the Federal Register's website at www.federalregister.gov and the Government Publishing Office's website at www.govinfo.gov . A copy may also be found at FAA's Regulations and Policies website at www.faa.gov/regulations_policies .

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9677. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents FAA considered in developing this interim final rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed in the electronic docket for this rulemaking.

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document may contact its local FAA official or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the internet, visit www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/ .

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

The Census Bureau is eliminating all of the regulations found at 15 CFR part 40. Such regulations pertain to the training of foreign nationals in census procedures and general statistics pursuant to a now-obsolete collaborative arrangement between Commerce and USAID. The Census Bureau is proceeding with this elimination to ensure that its regulations are accurate and up-to-date, to remove unnecessary and potentially confusing regulatory language, and to recenter American interests.

This action concerns the Census Bureau's regulations at 15 CFR part 40, titled “Training of Foreign Participants in Census Procedures and General Statistics.” The regulations at part 40 formalize certain aspects of a 1954 Memorandum of Agreement and establish the framework by which the Census Bureau, in cooperation with the USAID and other government agencies, may provide technical training in census and statistical procedures to foreign nationals.

The regulations at part 40 were established by a final rule published on January 4, 1963 (28 FR 119). The 1963 rule superseded a previous version of the part that was titled “Training Grants in Census Procedures.” The authority for the regulations at part 40 derives from several statutes, including 5 U.S.C. 301, 22 U.S.C. 1456, and 31 U.S.C. 686, as well as a Memorandum of Agreement between Commerce and the Foreign Operations Administration signed on June 10, 1954. As relevant, the Foreign Operations Administration was abolished by Executive Order 10610 the following year, and its functions were transferred to the Department of Defense (now Department of War) and the Department of State (including USAID).

Since the abolition of the Foreign Operation Administration, USAID has been the primary agency awarding training grants under part 40. The Census Bureau, on the other hand, has been the agency actually providing the training related to census and statistical procedures. Such trainings have covered topics such as questionnaire development, data processing, sampling techniques, and statistical analysis, accounting for the needs and limitations of participants' home countries.

In 2025, the Department of State significantly scaled back USAID and assumed its few remaining functions. Collaboration between the Census Bureau and USAID is suspended.

Part 40 consists of five sections: §§ 40.1, 40.2, 40.3, 40.4, and 40.5.

Section 40.1 provides an overview of the kinds of training grants that can be offered under part 40. See 15 CFR 40.1. Such grants include those related to conference courses, seminar laboratory exercises, observation work, and field training. See 15 CFR 40.1(a)-(f).

Section 40.2 sets forth the qualifications required to be eligible for a training grant under part 40. See 15 CFR 40.2. Specifically, applicants must be (1) “[a] bona-fide citizen of a country with whom the United States has proper diplomatic arrangements for such training problems,” (2) “[a]ble to speak, read, write, and understand the English language,” (3) “[s]ponsored by his government either directly with the United States or through a public international agency,” and (4) “[p]hysically able to undertake the activities incident to the course of training and free from communicable diseases.” 15 CFR 40.2(a)(1)-(4).

Section 40.3 acknowledges that, “[i]n compliance with the provisions contained in the Memorandum of Agreement executed between the Department of Commerce and the Foreign Operations Administration (now AID) on June 10, 1954, the Bureau of the Census is authorized within its areas of competence and available resources to continue its training of foreign nationals under the general guidance of the Department of Commerce and in cooperation with the bilateral technical assistance programs of the United States Government.” 15 CFR 40.3.

Section 40.4 sets forth certain administration provisions related to the selection of participants and funding of costs. See 15 CFR 40.4. In particular, subsection (a) discusses the materials that must be provided to the Census Bureau in order for it to develop a training program at the request and expense of USAID; subsection (b) states that the Census Bureau “reserves the right to accept . . . only those participants whom it finds qualified to make satisfactory use of its training facilities and resources”; and subsection (c) provides that various administrative responsibilities will be the responsibility of USAID under the provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement. See 15 CFR 40.4(a)-(c).

Lastly, § 40.5 states that the Census Bureau “also undertakes the training of foreign nationals proposed through the Department of State under the International Exchange Service (IES) or under the sponsorship of public international agencies.” 15 CFR 40.5.

The Census Bureau has determined that it is appropriate to fully remove 15 CFR part 40 for the following reasons.

As an initial matter, no statutory authority requires the promulgation of the regulations currently set forth in part 40. This lack of a statutory mandate alone warrants reconsideration of part 40, as it is now Commerce's approach—pursuant to a broader deregulatory effort—to remove any regulation that is (i) not specifically required or authorized by statute and (ii) not justified by a compelling policy reason. Such an approach helps ensure that the body of Federal regulations conforms to the scope of underlying statutory authorities and does not impose any unnecessary burdens on the public. The Census Bureau's elimination of part 40 is consistent with that approach.

Additionally, the program established by part 40 is obsolete. USAID—the agency upon which the Census Bureau relied to carry out part 40—is no longer operating in the manner contemplated by part 40, and there is no indication that such collaboration is likely to resume. Even if any such collaboration were to resume, the Census Bureau is satisfied that the Memorandum of Agreement would provide sufficient operational guidance and detail. In any event, for the time being, the continued presence of part 40 poses a risk of confusion for both the American public and foreign nationals. The elimination of part 40 will help ensure that the Census Bureau's regulations remain accurate and up-to-date, with minimal potential sources of distraction and confusion.

Finally, the Census Bureau's mission is to serve as the United States' leading provider of quality data about its own people and economy; the elimination of part 40 is consistent with a renewed focus on that priority.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Commerce finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. Commerce has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary because this rule only removes regulatory language that is currently obsolete and not required by any statute; the obsolete and unnecessary nature of this regulatory language will not be cured by any public comment. Commerce has also determined that delaying the removal of this regulatory language for the sake of carrying out the notice and comment process would be contrary to the public interest, as the language no longer serves any meaningful function but does pose a risk of confusion and distraction. Commerce therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and, for the same reason, to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This rule affects 15 CFR part 60, which pertains to public access to the Bureau's records under various statutes, including the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552. The sole regulation within 15 CFR part 60 is § 60.1. It states that the applicable rules and procedures are found at 15 CFR part 4, which contains the regulations governing disclosure of government information for the Department of Commerce (Department) at large.

Historically, the Bureau's own agency-specific disclosure regulations were set forth in 15 CFR part 60. However, those agency-specific regulations were rendered obsolete when they were superseded by the comprehensive, Department-wide FOIA regulations located at 15 CFR part 4. In a final rule published on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 40841), the Bureau revised 15 CFR part 60 to reflect this supersession and consolidation. Specifically, the 1992 amendment removed §§ 60.2 through 60.11 and revised § 60.1 to formally direct readers to the comprehensive disclosure regulations at 15 CFR part 4. Thus, as a result of the 1992 amendment, the sole regulation within 15 CFR part 60 is simply an administrative cross-reference to 15 CFR part 4.

By this rule, the Bureau is eliminating § 60.1 and therefore 15 CFR part 60 in its entirety. As discussed above, § 60.1 is simply an administrative cross-reference to the comprehensive, Department-wide disclosure regulations at 15 CFR part 4. While this cross-reference may have been somewhat useful when the comprehensive disclosure regulations were newly promulgated, it no longer serves any meaningful, independent function. The Department-wide regulations at 15 CFR part 4 are easy to locate and fully satisfy the Bureau's obligation to implement FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), (4)(A)(i)-(ii), (6)(E)(i)-(ii) (requiring each agency to promulgate certain disclosure-related regulations). Indeed, no statutory authority requires the Bureau to promulgate and maintain a separate cross-reference to 15 CFR part 4. Accordingly, the Bureau has determined that maintaining such a cross-reference is unwarranted, as it effectively amounts to regulatory clutter and it also creates some potential for confusion (particularly with respect to the lack of similar cross-references for other Department-wide regulations). Eliminating § 60.1, and therefore 15 CFR part 60 in its entirety, is consistent with the Department's broader policy and effort to remove regulations that are not statutorily required and do not serve any compelling function. This elimination will streamline the Bureau's regulations without altering any substantive rights or obligations.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes an entirely unnecessary cross-reference to other applicable regulations; public participation could not justify the continued maintenance of 15 CFR part 60. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule serves no meaningful, independent purpose and effectively amounts to regulatory clutter; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Census Bureau (Bureau) is removing its regulations at 15 CFR part 70 governing the cutoff dates for the recognition of boundary changes for the 2010 Census. This action is necessary, as the regulations pertain exclusively to the 2010 Decennial Census and are therefore obsolete and serve no current administrative or public purpose. The intended effect is to streamline the Code of Federal Regulations and reduce potential confusion for the public by removing outdated provisions.

The regulations in 15 CFR part 70 were first established in a final rule published on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24653), to govern the 1990 Decennial Census. Citing the authority under 13 U.S.C. 4, as delegated by the Secretary of Commerce, the Bureau created this framework to provide a clear and consistent process for data collection and tabulation. The rule was designed to address the operational need for a stable geographic framework during the enumeration period by establishing firm cutoff dates after which boundary changes would not be recognized for that census cycle. The rule was subsequently amended through technical amendments for each following decennial census. A final rule published on March 3, 1998 (63 FR 10303) updated the relevant dates for the 2000 Census, and a final rule on August 11, 2008 (73 FR 46553) updated the dates and references for the 2010 Census, which is the most recent version of the regulation.

The regulations at 15 CFR part 70 being eliminated in this action define the operational framework for this process. Section 70.1 establishes the principal cutoff dates, requiring that for the 2010 Census, the Bureau will recognize only boundaries that are legally in effect on January 1, 2010, and that have been officially reported to the Bureau by March 1 of that same year. This ensured that census enumeration and data tabulation are based on a fixed and universally applied set of municipal, county, and state boundaries. Section 70.2 defines the key terms “municipality” and “county subdivision” for census purposes, clarifying that they include areas such as cities, villages, townships, and magisterial districts, and references a more complete description in the “Census 2000 Geographic Terms and Concepts” publication. Finally, § 70.3 outlines the effect of failing to meet the established deadlines. It specifies that any boundary changes that become effective after the January 1 cutoff, or that are not reported by the March 1 deadline, will not be recognized in the data tabulations for the 2010 Census. For enumeration purposes, residents of an area that was legally transferred to another jurisdiction after the cutoff date would be counted as residents of the area in which they resided on January 1, 2010.

Following a review of these regulations, the Bureau has determined that they are outdated and no longer necessary.

This rule removes §§ 70.1, 70.2, and 70.3, which constitute 15 CFR part 70 in its entirety. These sections collectively established the operational framework for recognizing governmental boundary changes for the 2010 Census. Specifically, § 70.1 set the cutoff dates for boundary recognition, § 70.2 provided definitions for “municipality” and “county subdivision” for the purposes of that census, and § 70.3 detailed the consequences for boundary changes that occurred or were reported after the established deadlines. The Bureau has determined that these regulations, which pertain exclusively to the 2010 Decennial Census, are obsolete and no longer necessary. As such, these regulations have no future applicability and serve no current administrative or public purpose. Retaining these defunct rules in the Code of Federal Regulations creates unnecessary clutter, which can lead to confusion for state and local government officials, researchers, and the public who may be seeking information on current census procedures. Their removal is a common-sense administrative action that improves the clarity and utility of the Code of Federal Regulations without affecting any current rights or obligations.

This action is part of the Bureau's ongoing commitment to regulatory reform and good governance, ensuring that the Code of Federal Regulations remains current, clear, and free of outdated or redundant provisions. By eliminating this part, the Bureau reduces confusion for the public and governmental entities and streamlines the existing body of regulations and promotes efficiency by ensuring that stakeholders are not required to review and assess inapplicable regulations when determining current requirements.

Furthermore, the Department has determined that these regulations are not statutorily required. The authorizing statute cited for this part, 13 U.S.C. 4, provides the Secretary of Commerce with a general grant of authority to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the duties of the Department. It does not, however, contain a specific mandate requiring the promulgation or retention of regulations governing census boundary cutoff dates. The establishment of such dates is an operational necessity for conducting a census, but the decision to codify the specific dates for a past census is a matter of administrative discretion. Because these regulations are time-limited and their statutory basis is discretionary, the Bureau has the authority, as delegated by the Secretary of Commerce, to remove the regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations to maintain a relevant and efficient regulatory framework.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Bureau finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Bureau has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary because the sole change being made by this rule is the removal of the regulations at 15 CFR part 70, which are indisputably obsolete and also impose some burden on the public. The public would be tasked with determining whether the regulations have any continuing effect unless they are removed from the Code of Federal Regulations. These regulations pertain exclusively to the 2010 Census, which is neither in progress nor in effect, and thus no longer serve any purpose. Their continued presence in the Code of Federal Regulations would suggest some significance and effect, and thereby potentially: (1) confuse members of the public regarding the rules governing current and/or future Census activities, which can be matters of great public concern; and (2) distract from or minimize other Census regulations that actually do continue to possess significance. The obsolete nature of these regulations—and their potential for creating confusion among the public regarding Census activities moving forward—will not be cured by any public comment, as those regulations will continue to only apply to the completed 2010 Census and no future censuses. Because public participation is unnecessary and cannot cure the concerns that the continued presence of 15 CFR part 70 would raise, there exists good cause under § 553(b)(B) to waive the requirement for notice and comment procedures.

For similar reasons, the Bureau has additionally determined that there is good cause to waive the requirement for a 30-day delay in the effective date for this final rule under § 553(d). The immediate removal of 15 CFR part 70 will minimize the risk of public confusion regarding the rules governing current and the Bureau's future activities, as well as the risk of distracting from its regulations currently in effect. There are no requirements for members of the public to take action in order to comply with the revised regulations. There are likewise no costs for the public to bear that are associated with this final rule taking effect, as the rule exclusively removes obsolete regulations. Therefore, the Bureau finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness requirement under § 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

This action concerns the Bureau's regulations at 15 CFR part 80, which set forth requirements, restrictions, and procedures for obtaining personal information from historical population records maintained by the Bureau. Such regulations specify who is eligible to request personal information, outline the application process, and identify the conditions under which data may be released.

The Bureau established the regulations at part 80 through a final rule published on November 17, 1975 (40 FR 53232). That rule was promulgated under the authority of 13 U.S.C. 8 to create a standardized process for furnishing personal data from census questionnaires to authorized individuals. The regulatory framework requires applicants to submit a formal request, typically on Form BC-600, and to pay a fee. It also defines eligibility for requesting information for living persons, such as the individual themselves, a parent of a minor, or a legal guardian, as well as for deceased persons, limiting access to specific relatives or the administrator of the estate.

Through a final rule published on December 23, 1983 (48 FR 56744), the Bureau made technical amendments to certain regulations at part 80—including § 80.6—by adding Office of Management and Budget control numbers in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

This action affects two sections within part 80, §§ 80.5 and 80.6, both of which were established by the original 1975 rule.

Section 80.5, titled “Detrimental use of information,” cites and quotes 13 U.S.C. 8(c), stating that “[i]n no case shall information furnished under this section be used to the detriment of any respondent or other person to whom such information relates.” 15 CFR 80.5.

Similarly, § 80.6, titled “False statements,” stated that “[a]ny false statement or forgery on the application or supporting papers required to obtain Census information is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code.” 15 CFR 80.6; see 18 U.S.C. 1001(a) (making it a crime punishable up to five years' imprisonment to make any false statement or to use any false writing in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch).

This rule amends 15 CFR part 80 by removing two sections that the Bureau has determined are unwarranted—§§ 80.5 and 80.6. As described above, these sections merely restate underlying statutory language and therefore are unnecessary. Specifically, § 80.5 directly quotes 13 U.S.C. 8(c), which is self-executing and does not require any implementing regulation to be effective; and § 80.6 references and restates 18 U.S.C. 1001, a criminal law of general applicability that, like 13 U.S.C. 8(c), does not require any implementing regulation. Accordingly, neither § 80.5 nor § 80.6 serves any independent function; both simply call attention to statutory provisions that the public is already presumed to be aware of.

Upon review, the Bureau has determined that the continued maintenance of these sections is not justified. Because, in substance, §§ 80.5 and 80.6 are entirely duplicative of statutory language, their removal will not alter any substantive rights, obligations, or consequences for misconduct. Moreover, their removal is consistent with the Department of Commerce's ongoing effort to streamline its regulations, eliminate superfluous provisions and clutter, and promote efficiency. Their removal is also consistent with the general understanding that statutes can and ought to speak for themselves, and that regulatory restatements thereof pose an unnecessary risk of miscommunication and misinterpretation.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department of Commerce (Department) finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only removes two regulatory sections that merely restate statutory language and thus are entirely superfluous. The appropriateness of removing these sections pursuant to the Department's deregulatory effort would not be affected by public comment, as these sections clearly serve no meaningful function independent from the underlying statutory authority. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The regulatory language being removed by this rule unnecessarily poses some risk of inconsistency, confusion, and inefficiency; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and, for the same reasons, to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Census Bureau amends 15 CFR part 80 to read as follows:

The Bureau is amending its regulations at 15 CFR part 90, which govern the Population Estimates Challenge Program. For context, the Bureau produces population estimates pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 4 and 13 U.S.C. 181. The Bureau mostly recently revised the program for challenging such estimates through a final rule published on March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17705). The aim of this program is to ensure the accuracy of the Bureau's annual population estimates by providing governmental units a formal process for requesting a review of, submitting additional data for, and identifying potential errors in the Bureau's estimates.

Part 90 consists of nine regulatory sections: §§ 90.1, 90.2, 90.3, 90.4, 90.5, 90.6, 90.7, 90.8, and 90.9.

Section 90.1 addresses the scope and applicability of part 90. It explains that, “[b]etween decennial censuses, the Census Bureau annually prepares statistical estimates of the number of people residing in States and their governmental units.” 15 CFR 90.1. It further explains that these estimates generally “are developed by updating the population counts produced in the most recent decennial census with demographic components of change data and/or other indicators of population change.” Id. And it notes that the rules set forth in part 90 “prescribe the administrative procedure available to governmental units to request a challenge to the most current of these estimates.” Id.

Section 90.2 states that “[i]t is the policy of the Census Bureau to provide the most accurate population estimates possible given the constraints of resources and available statistical techniques.” 15 CFR 90.2. Section 90.2 further states that “[i]t is also the policy of the Census Bureau, to the extent feasible, to provide governmental units the opportunity to seek a review of and provide additional data for these estimates and to present evidence relating to the accuracy of the estimates.” Id.

Section 90.3 recognizes various definitions. 15 CFR 90.3. In particular, § 90.3(g) notes that, “For the purposes of this program, an eligible governmental unit also includes the District of Columbia and non-functioning counties or statistical equivalents represented by an FSCPE member agency ( i.e., a Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates member agency).” Id.

Section 90.4 is titled “General” and states that “[t]his part provides a procedure for a governmental unit to request a challenge of a population estimate of the Census Bureau.” 15 CFR 90.4. It further states that “[t]he Census Bureau, upon receipt of the appropriate documentation, will attempt to resolve the estimate with the governmental unit.” Id.

Section 90.5. addresses the matter of “[w]ho may file a challenge” to the annual population estimates. 15 CFR 90.5. Specifically, it states that “[a] request for a challenge of a population estimate generated by the Census Bureau may be filed only by the chief executive officer or highest elected official of a governmental unit.” Id. It goes on to state that “[i]n those instances where the FSCPE member agency represents a non-functioning county or statistical equivalent, the governor will serve as the chief executive officer or highest elected official.” Id.

Section 90.6 addresses the matter of “[w]hen a challenge may be filed.” 15 CFR 90.6. Subsection (a) states that “[a] request for a challenge to a population estimate may be filed any time up to 90 days after the release of the estimate by the Census Bureau,” that “[p]ublication by the Census Bureau on its website ( www.census.gov ) shall constitute release,” and that “[d]ocumentation requesting a challenge of any estimate may also be filed any time up to 90 days after the date the Census Bureau, on its own initiative, revises that estimate.” 15 CFR 90.6(a). Subsection (b) then clarifies that “[i]f, however, a governmental unit has a sufficiently meritorious reason for not filing in a timely manner, the Census Bureau has the discretion to accept the late request.” 15 CFR 90.6(b).

Section 90.7 addresses the matter of where to file a challenge. Specifically, it provides that “[a] request for a population estimate challenge must be prepared in writing” and sent to the Chief of the Population Division of the Bureau either via email or at a physical address specified elsewhere. 15 CFR 90.7. It also requires that any governmental unit submitting such a request “designate a contact person who can be reached by telephone or email during normal business hours should questions arise with regard to the submitted materials.” Id.

Section 90.8 addresses the matter of what evidence is required for such challenges. 15 CFR 90.8. Subsection (a) opens by stating that “[t]he governmental unit shall provide whatever evidence it has relevant to the request at the time of filing” and that “[t]he Census Bureau may request further evidence when necessary.” 15 CFR 90.8(a). But, as relevant, subsection (a) also states that “[t]he evidence submitted must be consistent with the criteria, standards, and regular processes the Census Bureau employs to generate the population estimate.” Id. Subsection (a) goes on to make clear that “[t]he Census Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided indicates the use of incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the estimates” and that the Census Bureau “cannot accept estimates developed from methods different from those used by the Census Bureau.” Id.

Lastly, § 90.9 addresses the process of reviewing challenges. Specifically, it states that “[t]he Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau, or the Chief's designee shall review the evidence provided with the request for the population estimate challenge, shall work with the governmental unit to verify the data provided by the governmental unit, and evaluate the data to resolve the issues raised by the governmental unit.” 15 CFR 90.9. It also states that “the designated FSCPE agencies are encouraged to serve as conduits with local governments in the review of pre-release estimates, to the extent that this is possible given data confidentiality requirements for pre-release data.” Id. And it concludes by stating that “the Census Bureau shall respond in writing with a decision to accept or deny the challenge. In the event that the Census Bureau finds that the population estimate should be updated, it will also post the revised estimate on the Census Bureau's website ( www.census.gov ).” Id.

The Bureau is amending its regulations at 15 CFR part 90 to improve and streamline the Population Estimates Challenge Program. Specifically, the Bureau is (i) enhancing clarity by amending language throughout part 90 to consistently reflect that part 90 establishes a procedure for requesting a challenge to the Bureau's estimates, see 15 CFR 90.4, 90.5, 90.6, 90.7, 90.9; (ii) enhancing clarity by expressly introducing the acronym FSCPE for “Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates,” see 15 CFR 90.3(g); (iii) eliminating inconsequential language within 15 CFR 90.4, 90.9; and (iv) removing or amending provisions that impose undue requirements and restrictions on challengers, see 15 CFR 90.6(b), 90.8(a). The Bureau is making these changes to reduce regulatory complexity and confusion, alleviate the burden on potential challengers, and promote accuracy and accountability with respect to the Bureau's annual population estimates.

First, the Bureau is amending language throughout part 90 to consistently reflect that part 90 establishes a process for requesting a challenge. Much of the language throughout part 90—particularly, the language used in the titles of sections—omits any acknowledgment of the fact that government units must request to file such a challenge. See 15 CFR 90.5 (titled “Who may file a challenge”); 15 CFR 90.6 (titled “When a challenge may be filed”); 15 CFR 90.7 (titled “Where to file a challenge”); 15 CFR 90.9 (titled “Review of challenge”). The Bureau is tweaking the titles of §§ 90.5, 90.6, 90.7, and 90.9 to more clearly reflect that part 90 pertains, most directly, to requests for challenges.

The Bureau is also enhancing the clarity of the references in part 90 to “FSCPE.” That acronym is currently used three times throughout part 90, see 15 CFR 90.3(g), 90.5, 90.9, but it is never formally introduced and explained. The Bureau is therefore amending the first use of the acronym “FSCPE” (§ 90.3(g)) to explain that it stands for Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates.

Next, the Bureau is eliminating two regulatory provisions that are unnecessary and inconsequential.

Section 90.4 states that part 90 “provides a procedure for a governmental unit to request a challenge of a population estimate of the Census Bureau” and also that the Bureau will “attempt to resolve the estimate with the governmental unit.” 15 CFR 90.4. The Bureau has determined that § 90.4 is unnecessary and appropriate for removal, particularly in light of §§ 90.1 and 90.2, which sufficiently introduce the purpose of part 90 and the Bureau's commitment to resolving estimate disputes to the extent feasible.

Section 90.9 addresses the process of reviewing challenges, and, in pertinent part, it states that “designated FSCPE agencies are encouraged to serve as conduits with local governments in the review of pre-release estimates.” 15 CFR 90.9. This language is purely advisory and lacks any substantive, regulatory effect. Accordingly, the Bureau has determined that it is appropriate for removal to simplify part 90 and minimize the risk of distraction and/or confusion.

Lastly, the Bureau is amending two substantive provisions within part 90 to reduce the administrative hurdles that potential challengers must overcome and to enable governmental units to bring legal challenges more freely. Such amendments are intended to reduce regulatory burden and to promote accuracy and public confidence.

Section 90.6(b), for instance, establishes an exception to the general deadline and provides that the Bureau has the discretion to accept late requests if the governmental unit “has a sufficiently meritorious reason for not filing in a timely manner.” 15 CFR 90.6(b). Upon review, the Bureau has determined that this “sufficiently meritorious reason” language should be removed, as there could be an instance in which a population challenge is compelling and ought to be considered even though the relevant governmental unit lacks a “sufficiently meritorious reason” for missing the deadline. The Bureau believes that removing the “sufficiently meritorious reason” language from § 90.6(b) will better account for such instances without creating any meaningful concerns, considering the language is already quite opaque and malleable.

Section 90.8(a) expressly restricts the kinds of evidence that challengers may submit, requiring that it be consistent with the criteria, standards, and regular processes employed by the Bureau and not developed from any other methods. 15 CFR 90.8(a). It then also states that “[t]he Census Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided indicates the use of incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the estimates.” Upon review, the Bureau has determined that this final sentence is unnecessary, given the preceding language, and potentially unduly restrictive. Removing the final sentence of § 90.8(a) is consistent with the Department's broader effort to streamline its regulations and reduce regulatory complexity.

The Bureau believes that these two amendments strike a more appropriate balance of interests and will better facilitate challenges to the Bureau's population estimates at an acceptable cost to the Bureau.

In sum, the Bureau is amending §§ 90.3, 90.4, 90.5, 90.6, 90.7, 90.8, and 90.9 as described above to streamline and improve the regulations governing Population Estimates Challenge Program.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department of Commerce (Department) finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only (1) adds some missing, clarifying language; (2) eliminates inconsequential regulatory language; and (3) removes two, statutorily-unnecessary regulatory restrictions imposed on requests to challenge the Bureau's annual population estimates. The appropriateness of these amendments and removals pursuant to the Department's broader deregulatory effort would not be affected by public comment, as they enhance clarity and reduce unnecessary regulatory complexity and obstacles for the public; they do not impair or otherwise negatively affect stakeholders' rights under part 90. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The regulatory language being amended or removed by this rule unnecessarily poses some risk of confusion and inefficiency; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Census Bureau amends 15 CFR part 90 to read as follows:

This action concerns the Bureau's regulations at 15 CFR part 100, which establish and govern the official seal of the Bureau.

The official seal for the Bureau was first established in a final rule published on March 16, 1960 (25 FR 2163). That 1960 rule cited 13 U.S.C. 3 as the statutory authority and codified regulations governing the official seal at 15 CFR part 20. Subsequently, in a final rule published on June 7, 1985 (50 FR 23947), the Bureau redesignated 15 CFR part 20 as 15 CFR part 100. However, that 1985 rule was a purely administrative action, and it made no substantive changes to the regulations governing the official seal.

The cited authority for 15 CFR part 100 is “R.S. 161, as amended, sec. 3, 68 Stat. 1012, as amended (5 U.S.C. 301, 13 U.S.C. 3).” Part 100 currently consists of three sections: §§ 100.1, 100.2, and 100.3.

Section 100.1 readdresses the authority for 15 CFR part 100 and states that “[p]ursuant to section 3 of Title 13, United States Code, the Bureau of the Census official seal and design thereof, which accompanies and is made a part of this document, is hereby approved.” 15 CFR 100.1.

Section 100.2 sets forth a detailed description of the official seal. See 15 CFR 100.2. Specifically, it states as follows:

Section 100.3 addresses custody and affixation of the seal. See 15 CFR 100.3. Specifically, it states that “[t]he seal shall remain in the custody of the Director, Bureau of the Census or such officer or employee of the Bureau as he designates and shall be affixed to all certificates and attestations that may be required from the Bureau.” Id.

The Bureau has determined that it is appropriate to amend 15 CFR part 100 by removing §§ 100.1 and 100.3, and by making some minor additions to § 100.2, for the following reasons.

Removing § 100.1. As previewed, § 100.1 readdresses the underlying authority for 15 CFR part 100 and states that, pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 3, the official seal included in part 100 is “hereby approved.” See 15 CFR 100.1. Notably, 13 U.S.C. 3 is already identified in the authority citation for 15 CFR part 100. Thus, insofar as § 100.1 reestablishes 13 U.S.C. 3 as the underlying statutory authority for 15 CFR part 100, it is unnecessary and redundant. And insofar as § 100.1 “approve[s]” the official seal, such language can be consolidated into § 100.2, as described below. Doing so, and eliminating § 100.1 as a standalone provision, will reduce clutter and streamline 15 CFR part 100, thereby promoting clarity and efficiency.

Revising § 100.2. Section 100.2 contains a detailed description of the official seal. See 15 CFR 100.2. As particularly relevant, the description is currently introduced by a single word—“Seal:”. To account for the removal of § 100.1 and also ensure clarity, the Bureau is amending the introduction of § 100.2 to instead identify the seal as the “approved, official seal of the Census Bureau.” This consolidation and clarification will promote simplicity and efficiency.

Separately, the Bureau is also making some minor punctuation additions to the detailed description set forth in § 100.2 to promote readability.

Removing § 100.3. Section 100.3 effectively establishes two rules: (1) that the official seal shall remain in the custody of the Director of the Bureau (or his designee); and (2) that the official seal shall be affixed to “all certificates and attestations that may be required from the Bureau.” 15 CFR 100.3. However, the language of § 100.3 no longer tracks the controlling statute with respect to either of these rules. As for custody, the current version of 13 U.S.C. 3 provides that “[t]he seal shall remain in the custody of the Secretary [of Commerce] or such officer or employee of the Bureau as he designates.” (Emphasis added.) And, as for affixation, the current version of 13 U.S.C. 3, provides that the seal “shall be affixed to all documents authenticated by the [Census] Bureau.” (Emphasis added.) Upon review, the Bureau has determined that 13 U.S.C. 3 sufficiently speaks for itself on these issues of custody and affixation. Removing § 100.3 will eliminate the potential inconsistencies between 15 CFR part 100 and 13 U.S.C. 3, and will properly encourage readers to directly review and consult the underlying statutory text.

In sum, the Census Bureau is amending 15 CFR part 100 to consist solely of a description of the “approved, official seal of the Census Bureau.” The Bureau has determined that such a description constitutes the core component of 15 CFR part 100, and that the rest of 15 CFR part 100 is unnecessary and appropriate for removal. The Bureau is amending 15 CFR part 100 accordingly to promote regulatory simplicity and to reduce clutter and the potential for inconsistencies or confusion.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Department of Commerce (Department) finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. The Department considers this rule to be uncontroversial, and has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary, because this rule only consolidates the core language of 15 CFR part 100 into one section, adds some missing punctuation marks, and eliminates unnecessary language that poses some risk of inconsistency and confusion; the appropriateness of these minor changes would not be affected by public comment. For the same reasons, the Department has determined that delaying the effectiveness of these amendments would be contrary to the public interest. The language being removed by this rule unnecessarily poses some risk of inconsistency, confusion, and inefficiency; its removal will immediately benefit the public at little to no cost. The Department therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and, for the same reasons, to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule will not impose additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Census Bureau amends 15 CFR part 100 as follows:

The Bureau is removing 15 CFR part 101, “Release of Decennial Census Population Information,” in its entirety. The Bureau is removing this language to ensure conformity with the primary underlying statutory authority—13 U.S.C. 141(c)—and to ensure that the Secretary is able to fulfill his mandate thereunder without being hindered by any overly-prescriptive and outdated regulatory restrictions and requirements. This removal is intended to promote flexibility and efficiency—within lawful limits and subject to democratic accountability—and to reduce regulatory complexity and bloat.

As previewed, the Bureau is removing 15 CFR part 101, which governs the release of decennial census population information. The cited statutory authorities for 15 CFR part 101 consist of 5 U.S.C. 301; 13 U.S.C. 4, 141, 195; and 15 U.S.C. 1512; with the most pertinent statutory authority being 13 U.S.C. 141(c).

Under 13 U.S.C. 141(c), the Secretary is required to establish, and to furnish to “[t]he officers or public bodies having initial responsibility for the legislative apportionment or districting of each State,” criteria governing State plans “identifying the geographic areas for which specific tabulations or population are desired.” The Secretary is also required to complete tabulations of populations for the areas identified in any plan that he approved “as expeditiously as possible after the decennial census date” and to report such tabulations to the Governors of the States involved and to the relevant officers or public bodies. See 13 U.S.C. 141(c).

On October 6, 2000, the Department issued a final rule that set forth the process by which the Bureau would release data to the States and that delegated to the Director of the Census (Director) the Secretary's authority to make determinations regarding the methodology to be used in calculating the tabulations of population to be reported (65 FR 59712). Less than a year later, on February 23, 2001, the Department issued a final rule revoking the described delegation to the Director and establishing the decision-making process currently outlined in part 101 (66 FR 11232). Both of these rules were issued against the backdrop of the proposed use of statistically-adjusted populations counts for non-apportionment purposes following the 2000 Census, which use did not occur.

Part 101 consists of a single regulatory section (§ 101.1), which itself consists of multiple paragraphs.

Paragraph (a)(1) provides that “[t]he Secretary of Commerce shall make the final determination regarding the methodology to be used in calculating the tabulations of population reported to States and localities pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c).” 15 CFR 101.1(a)(1). It further provides that “[t]he determination of the Secretary will be published in the Federal Register .” Id.

Paragraph (a)(2) restricts the Secretary from making the determination specified in paragraph (a)(1) “until after he or she receives the recommendation of the Director of the Census, together with the report of the Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1).” 15 CFR 101.1(a)(2).

Paragraph (b)(1), in turn, provides that the Executive Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (the Committee) “shall prepare a written report to the Director of the Census analyzing the methodologies that may be used in making the tabulations of population reported to States and localities pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 141(c), and the factors relevant to the possible choices of methodology.” 15 CFR 101.1(b)(1). It further provides that the Director will forward the Committee's report, along with his or her recommendation—if he or she has any—to the Secretary. Id.

Paragraph (b)(2) imposes a requirement that the Director's recommendation and the Committee's report be both posted on the Bureau's website and published in the Federal Register “at the same time” they are delivered to the Secretary. 15 CFR 101.1(b)(2).

Lastly, paragraph (b)(3) requires that the Committee be composed of the following employees of the Bureau: (i) the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer; (ii) the Principal Associate Director and Chief Financial Officer; (iii) the Principal Associate Director for Programs; (iv) the Associate Director for Decennial Census (Chair); (v) the Assistant Director for Decennial Census; (vi) the Associate Director for Demographic Programs; (vii) the Associate Director for Methodology and Standards; (viii) the Chief of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Division; (ix) the Chief of the Decennial Management Division; (x) the Chief of the Decennial Statistical Studies Division; (xi) the Chief of the Population Division; and (xii) the Senior Mathematical Statistician.

The Bureau is removing 15 CFR part 101 in its entirety and will instead allow the primary underlying statutory authority, 13 U.S.C. 141(c), to speak for itself. The Bureau is doing so for the following reasons.

As an initial matter, no statutory authority requires the promulgation of the regulatory requirements and restrictions set forth in part 101. The framework established by part 101 is a pure creature of regulation and was drawn up and defined at the discretion of the Department against the unique backdrop of the 2000 Census. That background context, alone, warrants reconsideration of the propriety and continued value of part 101 pursuant to the Department's broader deregulatory approach.

Upon further review, the Bureau has determined that the requirements and restrictions set forth in part 101 are not only statutorily unnecessary—they actively hinder the Secretary's ability to fulfill his express statutory obligations. For example, by restricting the Secretary from making a methodology determination until after he receives the specified formal input from both the Director and the Committee of the twelve specified officials, without exception, § 101.1(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(3) subject the Secretary to an administrative process (involving several other actors) that necessarily carries some risk of undue delay and breakdown. Similarly, by requiring that the Director and the Committee always publicly disseminate their recommendation and report, respectively, upon delivery to the Secretary, § 101.1(b)(2) potentially restricts or otherwise distorts the deliberative process within the Department and the Secretary's access to full and frank advice from the leadership of the Bureau. The publication requirement also creates an opportunity for publicized conflict within the Department, which is not necessarily conducive to optimal decision making.

Additionally, with respect to composition of the Committee, it bears noting that several of the specified positions have been either abolished or restructured through reorganization. Namely, the Bureau currently has no Principal Associate Director for Programs or Chief of the Planning, Research, and Evaluation Division. The Bureau considers the list set forth in § 101.1(b)(3) to be plainly outdated and unduly prescriptive.

Finally, to be clear, the removal of part 101 will not prevent the Secretary from soliciting and considering input from the leadership of the Bureau; nor will it prevent the Department from posting and publishing the Bureau's formal recommendations and reports. Rather, the Secretary remains entirely able to follow these practices; he simply will also be free to depart from these practices when, in his determination, the particular circumstances render it appropriate. Pursuant to 13 U.S.C. 4, the Secretary has the statutory authority to delegate the duties assigned to him under Title 13, United States Code, and to promulgate regulations to aid in carrying out these duties. Returning such discretion and authority to the Secretary will therefore promote flexibility and allow for greater efficiency—subject, as always, to democratic accountability and the limits of the law. The Bureau has determined that part 101 is outdated. Further, in the absence of part 101, the Secretary will be better positioned to faithfully and effectively carry out the requirements of 13 U.S.C. 141(c).

In sum, the Bureau is eliminating part 101 in its entirety to remove obsolete and unnecessary hinderances on the Secretary's ability to fulfill his statutory obligations and to enable a more optimal degree of administrative flexibility and efficiency.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Commerce finds good cause to waive the prior notice and opportunity for public participation requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act for this final rule. Commerce has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public participation is unnecessary because this rule only removes regulatory language that is currently obsolete and not required by any statute; the obsolete and unnecessary nature of this regulatory language will not be cured by any public comment. Commerce has also determined that delaying the removal of this regulatory language for the sake of carrying out the notice and comment process would be contrary to the public interest, as the language no longer serves any meaningful function but does pose a risk of confusion and distraction. Commerce therefore finds good cause to waive the public notice and comment period under 553(b)(B) and, for the same reason, to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 553(d).

The Office of Management and Budget has determined this rule is not significant pursuant to E.O. 12866. This rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule does not contain policies having federalism implications as the term is defined in E.O. 13132.

Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public participation are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ) are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

This rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The Coast Guard received notification that the M/V SM KESTREL will be transiting the Corpus Christi and La Quinta Ship Channels sometime between January 20 and 28, 2026. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Corpus Christi has determined that the vessel will be carrying dangerous cargo that creates a security concern for the vessel and the port. Therefore, the COTP is issuing this rule under the authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124, which is needed to protect the vessels, their cargo, and the surrounding waterway from terrorist acts, sabotage, and other subversive acts, accidents, or events of a similar nature in the navigable waters within the security 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 was notified of this event on January 12, 2026, but we must establish this security zone by January 20, 2026, to protect the vessels, their cargo, and the surrounding waterways. 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 security zone from January 20, 2026, to January 28, 2026. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the vessel. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security 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 security zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. 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:

The Coast Guard received notification that fireworks will be launched from shore on the St. Clair River at Palmer Park & Boardwalk on January 24, 2026. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within 50 yards of the fireworks display. 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. The Coast Guard was notified of this event on January 13, 2026, but we must establish this safety zone by January 24, 2026, to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment. Therefore, we do not have enough time to solicit and respond to comments.

For the same reason, 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 6 p.m. until 7 p.m. on January 24, 2026. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of the St. Clair River within 50 yards of the fireworks event. 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) 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:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, in MB Docket Nos. 24-148; FCC 25-84, adopted on December 18, 2025 and released December 19, 2025. The full text of this document is available via FCC website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/fcc-25-84A1.pdf. The full text of this document will also be available via ECFS https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) To request these documents in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

This Report and Order ( R&O ) adopts certain changes to the Commission's rules for Class A television, low power television, and TV translator stations (collectively the LPTV Service) as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 89 FR 53537 (June 27, 2024) (2024) (NPRM) adopted by the Commission in June 2024 in this proceeding. The Commission created the LPTV Service in 1982 to bring local television service to viewers “otherwise unserved or underserved” by existing full power television service providers. Today, these stations are an established component of the nation's television system, delivering free over-the-air TV service, including locally produced programming, to millions of viewers in both rural and urban communities. In light of changes within the broadcast industry and LPTV Service over the last forty years, the R&O adopts changes to the Commission's rules to ensure that the LPTV Service continues to flourish and serve the public interest long into the future.

The LPTV Service was established over forty years ago as a secondary, niche service delivering free over-the-air television service, including locally produced programming, to viewers in rural and discrete urban communities. With this goal in mind, it was exempted from certain obligations applicable to full power television broadcasters, including certain recordkeeping and operating obligations. Because stations in the LPTV Service are licensed on available channels found between full service television allocations, they are authorized at lower power levels and serve smaller geographic areas. While the type of stations that comprise the LPTV Service have many similarities under the Commission's rules, they are each a distinct class of broadcast television station, with differing rights and responsibilities. Currently, there are approximately 1,759 licensed low power television (LPTV) stations, 3,096 licensed TV translator stations, and 397 licensed Class A television (Class A) stations.

LPTV stations operate in all states and territories and are permitted to both originate programming, or with permission, retransmit the signal of another TV station. While many LPTV stations air “niche” programming, which is sometimes locally produced, others are affiliated with a television network, including the top four networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). TV translators, which also include digital replacement translators (DRTs) or digital-to-digital replacement translators (DTDRTs), primarily operate in the western regions of the United States and often deliver the only over-the-air television service to rural communities. With limited exception, TV translators may only simultaneously retransmit the signal of another TV station, with permission. The primary use of TV translator stations are to provide service to areas where direct reception of full-service television stations is unsatisfactory or not possible because of distance or intervening terrain obstructions. TV translators are not limited to operation within the contour of the station or stations they rebroadcast. Both LPTV and TV translator stations are secondary and may not cause interference to, and must accept interference from, full power television stations, as well as certain land mobile radio operations and other primary services, and may be displaced by full power stations. They also do not have to adhere to any regular schedule of operation.

Class A stations, which were established pursuant to the Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (CBPA), operate at low power, like LPTV/TV translator stations, but are afforded primary interference protection status. The extension of Class A status to LPTV stations has been limited to the terms of the CBPA and the Low Power Protection Act. Class A stations are required to broadcast a minimum of 18 hours per day and air an average of at least three hours per week of locally produced programming each quarter. Although many Class A stations air independent programming, some are affiliated with a television network, including the top four networks. In addition, Class A stations must comply with certain part 73 regulations applicable to full power television stations, including the Commission's online public inspection file rules, rules governing informational and educational children's programming, and the commercial limits in children's programming. Although Class A stations are not a secondary service, like LPTV/TV translator stations, they are still subject to the various licensing and technical requirements found in part 74 of the Commission's rules.

The R&O amends the displacement and channel sharing rules to eliminate the reference to a station's community of license (COL) and incorporate the language of the part 74 minor change rule that measures distance from the reference coordinates of an “existing station's antenna location.” The Commission concludes that modifying the channel sharing and displacement rules to measure a station's proposed relocation based on its antenna location's reference coordinates is a more accurate method of determining the station's service area at the time of such facility modifications and will help maximize service to existing viewers. The Commission finds that using a station's COL is not as accurate a reference point as its antenna reference coordinates, especially in light of the flexibility being afforded LPTV Service stations in this item when designating a COL.

The Commission rejected calls by commenters to retain the existing rules. Because LPTV Service stations are not included in the Table of TV Allotments (Table), they are not assigned any specific COL when licensed. Based on the contour size and the hyperlocal nature of LPTV Service stations, precision is necessary in order to retain the intent of the distance limitation in the rules with regards to minor changes and minimize service disruption. Therefore, the Commission finds that changing its rules to measure a station's proposed relocation based on the reference coordinates of its antenna location provides a more accurate method for determining a station's service area.

The R&O retains but modifies the current LPTV Service minor modification distance relocation limit to no greater than 49.1 km from a station's current antenna reference coordinates. This distance ensures that LPTV Service stations seeking to relocate their facilities continue to utilize the minor modification process for just “minor changes.” It will also preserve, to the greatest extent possible, continuity of service for existing viewers. The R&O declines to adopt alternative proposals set forth in the record and declines to adopt the proposed prohibition against rounding when making a distance calculation.

The R&O adopts a rule change to only reference the distance relocation limit in terms of kilometers and eliminate the reference to miles. The current Rule states that the distance limit is “30 miles (48 kilometers),” but these values are not equivalent. Thirty miles is approximately 48.28 km, while 48 km is approximately 29.8 miles. The Commission concludes that a single standard for calculating distance will establish precision and clarity for both broadcasters and the Commission. The R&O next adopts a revised distance limit of 49.1 km and rejects calls by commenters to eliminate or adopt a different limit and/or method for determining compliance. The R&O concludes that a slightly increased limit of 49.1 km (increased from the proposed 48.3 km), will maintain consistency and bring the rule in line with past processing practices.

Stations that have or may lose their existing transmitter sites, may or have been displaced, or are otherwise unable to relocate to a new, rule-compliant transmitter site may seek a waiver of the distance limit and the Commission instructs the Media Bureau (Bureau) to review such waivers on a case-by-case basis under the general waiver standard pursuant to § 1.4. The Bureau should view waiver requests favorably where the applicant is seeking a relocation of no greater than 49.1 km (prior to the new minor modification distance limitation adopted herein taking effect); or if greater than 49.1 km where the applicant can demonstrate that it must relocate its facilities due to circumstances beyond its control ( e.g., its tower has been decommissioned or it is displaced). As part of a waiver request seeking to move no more than 49.1 km, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal maintains contour overlap with the current facility. For a waiver request seeking a relocation of greater than 49.1 km, the applicant must show that it has taken all reasonable efforts to maximize service to existing viewers within the station's contour ( i.e., no reasonable alternatives are available that will result in more existing viewers maintaining coverage). The applicant may also demonstrate that viewers within its existing contour will remain well-served and have access to similar programing from other stations.

The R&O establishes a flexible, formal standard by which LPTV Service stations specify a community of license. The Commission finds that formalizing the COL designation process and providing a set standard for how LPTV Service stations select a COL will provide certainty to licensees and clarity to viewers. Currently, stations in the LPTV Service have been able to informally specify any COL they choose, regardless of whether they provide service to that location. Formalizing the COL designation process and providing a flexible standard for how LPTV Service stations can select its COL will ensure that COLs listed in the Commission's databases, such as the Licensing and Management System (LMS), reflect a station's actual service area. The R&O requires that all stations specify a rule-compliant COL within six months of the effective date of the rule.

Formal COL Designations. LPTV Service stations will be afforded the flexibility to determine where best to locate their stations' facilities and what COL to list for their facilities based on their actual service areas. The Commission rejects arguments that, because LPTV Service stations are not in the Table and can be authorized at any location, there is limited significance of a COL for these stations and the Commission should not adopt a more formal standard for stations to designate a COL. Requiring that LPTV Service stations designate a COL is intended to provide clarity for viewers, allow stations to foster relationships with the communities they serve, and better align with existing rules that already apply to the LPTV Service. Further, given the secondary status of LPTV/TV translator stations and the fact they may need to make changes to their facilities at any time, the Commission concludes that stations should have the flexibility to determine where to site their facilities and select a community of license for those facilities.

The Commission also rejects calls to exempt from the new COL requirement TV translators rebroadcasting full-power noncommercial educational (NCE) or “public” television stations to designate COLs because it would provide little meaningful public interest benefit given the statewide/regional reach of many public TV NCE stations. The Commission finds that the goals of the new COL rule ( i.e., ensuring clarity for viewers and allowing stations to foster relationships with the communities they serve) apply equally to all stations in the LPTV Service regardless of class, location, or operation. Furthermore, because TV translator stations are not formally licensed as “public” or “NCE” and are able to rebroadcast commercial or noncommercial stations, including over the same channel at the same time, there is no reliable way for the Commission to determine which translators are “public television translators” and would be eligible to be exempt from the COL rule. Such an approach would require additional filings from TV translators that would likely be more burdensome than simply utilizing existing Commission resources to confirm if their COL actually is located within the station's protected service contours.

Flexible COL Designation Criteria. The R&O adopts flexible criteria for LPTV Service stations to designate and change a COL. First, all LPTV Service stations must designate a COL with a boundary that overlaps with the station's “protected service contour” defined as the contour set forth in § 74.792 for LPTV/TV translator stations and § 73.6010 for Class A stations. A COL's “boundary” for the purpose of determining whether there is overlap with a station's protected service contour will be defined as the “boundary of the community as has been recognized by any federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entity.” A station will be required to certify in any application designating a COL that its protected service contour overlaps with the COL's boundary. Commission staff may request support for the certification in the form of a map demonstrating the overlap. Stations are permitted to use the name of a county or a commonly used name of an unincorporated area, as recognized by any federal, state, local, or tribal governmental entity, as a station's COL. In cases where no community exists within a station's protected service contour, a licensee may select a nearby community located outside its protected service contour and use Longley-Rice to demonstrate the field strength is at or above the value found in §§ 73.6010 or 74.792 (as appropriate). Any amount of overlap between a station's protected service contour and boundary of a station's COL will be deemed sufficient to designate a community as a COL.

COL Change Limits. The R&O declines to limit COL changes to once-per-year finding that licensees are best equipped to evaluate which community they serve within their contour and that the Commission should continue to provide stations in the LPTV Service the flexibility they need to site their facilities based on factors such as the nature of programming, geographic considerations, and market trends.

Required Filing, Compliance Period, and Fee Exemption. All stations in the LPTV Service will designate a COL by filing an application for modification of license and to pay the appropriate filing fee. Within six months of the effective date of the COL rule, all LPTV Service stations must have designated a COL that is rule-compliant. Stations whose current COL listed in LMS meets the requirements of the new COL rule do not need to take any action. Pursuant to § 1.1116, such filings are exempt from paying an application filing fee where the station files a modification of license application during this six-month period solely to come into compliance with the new COL rule. Minor modification applications that include other requests will incur a fee. The Bureau is instructed to revise the Commission's forms as necessary to implement the new COL rule.

The R&O declines to adopt a minimum operating requirement for LPTV stations recognizing that such a requirement may be burdensome and have a detrimental effect on LPTV stations that are traditionally afforded flexibility to decide their stations' operational schedule. Further, the Commission finds that LPTV stations are secondary licensees and many are owned and operated by various small entities whose operating funds, staff, and audience are limited. Therefore, compliance with a precise minimum operating schedule based on these entities existing expectations could prove challenging. Finally, the Commission finds that such a requirement could also unnecessarily deprive LPTV stations of important operational flexibility to respond to marketplace demands and programming opportunities to better serve their niche, local viewers.

Although the Commission declined to establish set minimum operating hours, LPTV stations will continue to be subject to existing operational requirements. An LPTV station that fails to operate for more than 10 days must notify the Commission that it is silent, § 74.763(b). If a station remains silent for more than 30 days, it must seek Commission authority to remain silent, § 73.1635. Upon resuming operations, stations must notify the Commission, § 73.1740(a)(4). Failure of an LPTV station to operate for a period of 30 days or more, except for causes beyond the control of the licensee, shall be deemed evidence of discontinuation of operation and the license of the station may be cancelled at the discretion of the Commission, § 74.763(c). Finally, as with all broadcast stations, an LPTV station's license will automatically expire, as a matter of law, if the station fails to transmit a broadcast signal for any consecutive twelve-month period, notwithstanding any provision, term, or condition of the license to the contrary, 47 U.S.C. 312(g). LPTV stations must also file required applications and/or notifications when they operate at variance from their licensed parameters, §§ 73.1635, 73.1740, 74.763(b).

Revising the Minimum Operating Requirement For TV Translators. The R&O also declines to revise the minimum operating rule for TV translators by replacing the word “expected” with “required.” The Commission recognized commenters who pointed out that vast majority of TV translators already attempt to provide as much service as possible, and this change would unnecessarily create uncertainty. The Commission reinforced its expectation that TV translators endeavor to do all they can to rebroadcast their primary station(s) and provide uninterrupted service given the nature of TV translator stations, which often provide service in rural, isolated areas in the absence of any other over-the-air television service.

The R&O clarifies that, with respect to the requirement in § 74.790(g)(3) that “[w]henever operating, an LPTV station must transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal . . . , ” the term “video program signal” excludes test patterns, slides, and still pictures with unrelated aural transmissions. The Commission concludes that this clarification is consistent with what viewers have come to expect with regards to the type of service provided by television broadcast stations. Further, the Commission clarifies that this does not mean that test patterns, slides, or still pictures with unrelated aural transmissions are precluded, nor does it mean that the Commission finds that they do not serve the public interest. To make this point clear, the R&O eliminates the term “whenever operating” from the rule to remove any doubt that the Commission does not intend to restrict LPTV stations from broadcasting test patterns, slides, or still pictures with unrelated audio.

The Commission rejects commenters that argue that this clarification goes against the flexibility originally granted to the LPTV stations. The Commission concludes that, although slides with local community information or still pictures with unrelated audio may have some public interest importance, it is not prohibiting stations from airing such material. Instead, the Commission concludes that such content is by itself insufficient for purposes of meeting the minimum video program signal obligation under § 74.790(g)(3). Rather than eliminate LPTV station's operational flexibility, the revised rule makes clear what it means to provide a “video program signal” and does not impose any new minimum operating requirements or preclude LPTV stations from broadcasting test patterns, slides, or still pictures with unrelated aural transmission so long as the station provides a video program signal that is consistent with the Commission's rules. The Commission will apply this requirement only to programming aired on the station's primary stream and not apply it to a station's multicast stream. For purposes of the rule, “multicast” stream(s) shall refer to a TV broadcast station's non-primary video programming stream(s); that is, stream(s) other than the station's primary video programming stream.

The Commission also rejects arguments that the rule amounts to unconstitutional Commission regulation of content on broadcast stations such that it interferes with a station licensee's right of free speech. The Commission maintains that the rule is wholly content neutral, as it does not distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech based on the views or ideas expressed in the programming and is reasonably tailored to satisfy the substantial governmental interest and long-standing Commission goal of ensuring that frequencies allocated for television service continue to be used for the types of video program services viewers have come to expect from television stations.

Finally, the Commission finds concerns raised in the record that adoption of the rule could prevent the airing of emergency information, such as Emergency Alert System (EAS) tests or alerts, to be unfounded. The rule does not prohibit the transmission of slides or still pictures with unrelated audio transmissions and, therefore, should not impede stations use of such materials in times of emergency, for EAS tests, or for other exceptional circumstances. In such circumstances, the display of slides and still pictures is usually brief and in practice should be inconsequential for determining whether a LPTV station is complying with its requirement under § 74.790(g)(3), as modified in the R&O.

The R&O adopts a rule to require LPTV and TV translator stations that want to change their service designation ( i.e., from LPTV to TV translator, or vice versa) to do so by way of a license modification application. By adopting an application requirement, but not imposing a limit on designation changes, the Commission concludes that it is creating a formal process for stations to change their designation that will allow the Commission and public to better track station classification changes and will provide rule compliance clarity for stations; while at the same time continuing to provide licensees the flexibility to change their service designation based on the programming demands of their viewers and the broadcast marketplace. Such applications will be filed electronically on LMS on FCC Form 2100, Schedule D. Applicants will be required to pay the requisite application filing fee. In order to promote transparency, ensure the timely processing of such requests (as limited in number as they may be), and in light of the general support for establishing a formal process for designation changes, the Commission determined it is appropriate to apply the same license modification process to Class A stations. Such applications will be filed electronically on LMS on FCC Form 2100, Schedule F. Applicants will be required to pay the requisite application filing fee. The Commission instructed the Bureau to revise its forms and make all necessary changes to LMS to implement this rule.

The R&O declines to adopt a rule limiting stations to designation changes only once every twelve months. The Commission concludes that limiting LPTV Service designation changes to no more than once every twelve months would provide only limited benefit that is outweighed by the public interest benefit of affording licensees flexibility to respond to marketplace demands and determine what service designation is appropriate to best serve their viewers.

The R&O clarifies that all TV translator stations must have an alphanumeric call sign comprised of a prefix consisting of the initial letter “K” or “W” (based on the station's geographic location in relation to the Mississippi River), followed by the channel number assigned to the station and two additional letters, and a suffix consisting of the letter “-D.” Thirty days after the effective date of this R&O, the Bureau will automatically modify any TV translator call signs that does not comply with the TV translator call sign convention. The 30-day period will allow licensees to inform their viewers of the impending call sign change as they deem necessary. Similarly, when a station converts from LPTV to TV translator status, the Bureau will provide a 30-day period before automatically modifying a station's call sign to comply with the call sign naming convention in the TV translator call sign rule, in order to allow the station a period of time to inform viewers of the impending call sign change as appropriate. The R&O declines to “grandfather” existing, non-compliant TV translator call signs finding that TV translator stations are, with limited exception, restricted to rebroadcasting other station's programing, TV translators do not have their own unique identity and `grandfathering' existing call signs has no cognizable public interest benefit.”

The R&O adopts a rule requiring that all Class A and LPTV stations must have a four-letter call sign, with the suffix “-LD” for LPTV stations and “-CD” for Class A stations. In light of the regulatory and service distinctions between LPTV Service stations, the Commission concludes that it is appropriate to require that each service conform to its own call sign prefix and suffix. The R&O will not require LPTV and Class A stations licensed as of the date of the release date of the R&O to change their call signs and will “grandfather” LPTV and Class A call signs that are not compliant with the revised rule. A grandfathered call sign may be retained, unless or until the station changes its service designation or voluntarily chooses to modify its call sign. Grandfathered call signs may also be retained as part of an assignment or transfer of a station's license. Stations that do not qualify for grandfathering or that want to voluntarily change their call sign to comply with the new rule will be provided one-year from the effective date of the rule changes to designate a four-letter call sign with the correct suffix. During this one-year period, pursuant to § 1.1116(a), such filings are exempt from payment of the fee associated with any call sign change request that is submitted by a station solely to come into compliance with the revised rule. Any station that subsequently modifies its service designation will be required to submit a call sign change request and pay the appropriate fee.

The R&O also adopts a rule to modify the call sign of a Class A station that reverts from Class A status to LPTV to reflect its LPTV status by automatically changing its call sign suffix from “-CD” to “-LD” upon the change in service designation. The newly classified LPTV station will retain its current four-letter call sign prefix unless it conflicts with that of an existing LPTV station. In such a circumstance, the former Class A station will be required to modify its four-letter call sign prefix in through the Commission's LMS call sign reservation process and pay the appropriate fee. When an opportunity for a status change from LPTV to Class A exists, a station's call sign will be modified to designate the “-CD” suffix as part of the Class A eligibility and licensing process. The newly created Class A station will retain its current four-letter call sign prefix unless it conflicts with that of an existing Class A station. In such a circumstance, the new Class A station will be required to modify its four-letter call sign prefix through the Commission's LMS call sign reservation process and pay the appropriate fee.

The Commission rejected proposals for alternative call sign assignments finding such alternatives unworkable and would actually make the call sign system more confusing for the public and the burden that would be placed on broadcasters through a wholesale change to the Commission's call sign system far outweighs any potential benefit.

The R&O amends the Commission's rules to clarify that all stations with the LPTV designation, regardless of how the station is operated, must generally comply with the part 11 EAS rules and further clarifies that a station formally designated in the Commission's database as a TV translator is not required to comply with the part 11 requirements, such as installing EAS equipment or meeting related obligations like filing in EAS Test Reporting System, if it entirely rebroadcasts the programming—including all EAS—of a Primary Station. If a TV translator airs locally originated content, it may need to install EAS equipment or monitor their Primary Station during periods of local origination to ensure that all EAS alerts provided by the Primary Station are being transmitted. The part 11 EAS rules currently provide that “LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations, as defined in § 74.701(b) are not required to comply with the requirements of this part.” In light of the decision to formalize the LPTV Service designation process and given the distinctions between LPTV and TV translator stations that have developed over the years, the Commission finds removal of this vague and unnecessary exception will help to ensure that all LPTV stations, when constructed, install the necessary EAS equipment. It will also further the public interest by ensuring emergency alerts are properly and fully disseminated. The Commission rejects opposition from commenters that it finds is based on an apparent misunderstanding of the rule change. The Commission clarifies the revised rule will not require a LPTV station to procure any new EAS equipment, does not expand existing EAS obligations, and does not increase burdens on existing stations that are or are acting as TV translators.

The R&O adopts a rule that requires that new channel 14 LPTV Service stations (Channel 14 LPTV Stations) and channel 14 LPTV stations that apply to modify their facilities specify a “full service” or “stringent” emission mask and prohibit the use of the “simple” emission mask. The Commission clarifies that stations currently licensed and operating without causing interference to Land Mobile Radio (LMR) operations do not need to implement stringent or full-service masks, unless they propose to modify their facilities. The Commission found that instances of interference to LMR facilities from channel 14 television facilities “have been readily resolved by the installation of appropriate filters” and that stringent and full-service emission masks are more restrictive than the simple mask and more effectively decrease out-of-band emissions. The Commission concludes that the cost difference between simple, stringent, and full-service mask filters is not substantial and because the filters are generally of similar physical size they should have similar installation costs. Therefore, the Commission concludes that any increased cost of requiring Channel 14 LPTV Stations to include stringent or full-service mask filters would not be unduly burdensome and any burden would be far outweighed by the benefits of better protecting LMR facilities from interference.

All Channel 14 LPTV Stations that are licensed as of the effective date of the new rule must specify either stringent or full-service mask filtering if they modify their facilities, unless the station is decreasing power or making a modification to its facilities that does not change its service contour. Use of filters superior to those found in the Commission's rules, including 8-pole, 12-pole, and cascaded masks, are still permitted to be used so long as they match or exceed the stringent and full-service masks which are permitted on channel 14. Relocation within the contour, even if it does not increase the contour in any direction, will require stringent or full-service mask filtering. While the overall service area may shrink, the new location may put the station closer to or potentially even on the same tower as a land mobile operation. This situation would be more likely to create interference, a situation we seek to avoid with this rule. With respect to those Channel 14 LPTV Stations that are licensed as of the effective date of the new rule, are operating without causing interference to LMR facilities despite use of a simple emissions mask, and do not seek to modify their facilities as described above, the Commission does not require they take any further action. Because such stations are operating without causing interference we find there is no benefit to requiring them to utilize stringent or full-service mask filtering unless there is interference to an LMR facility.

The R&O adopts a rule prohibiting LPTV/TV translator stations from operating above channel 36 (out-of-core channels). Although the Commission has prohibited new operations on out-of-core channels, it provided flexibility to LPTV/TV translator stations operating on out-of-core channels after the conclusion of the Incentive Auction and repacking process to continue operating on their pre-auction channels above channel 36 until they were notified by a new 600 MHz Band licensee that it intended to commence operations. The Commission notes that the Incentive Auction closed in 2017 and according to the Commission's records there are currently no LPTV/TV translator stations operating on out-of-core channels. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the flexibility previously afforded to out-of-core stations is no longer necessary. Further, the Commission also deletes its rules pertaining to station operations on out of core channels and new 600 MHz Band licensee notification requirements finding such rules to now be obsolete. These changes shall be effective 30 days after publication of this document. While the Bureau has conducted a thorough review of LMS to ensure no stations remain licensed and operational above channel 36, this delayed effective date will also provide further assurance of that fact and, if there are, provide those stations one final opportunity to locate an in-core channel before being required to cease operations.

The R&O adopts a rule that will require all transmitters in LPTV Service station Distributed Transmission System (DTS) facilities to utilize the same emission mask. The Commission notes that all stations must specify an emission mask to be implemented with their DTS facilities; however, the DTS rules adopted by the Commission for LPTV Service stations did not address whether a different type of emission mask could be employed or whether the same emission mask must be used at each DTS site. In order to ensure accurate interference calculations and reduce the potential for interference, the Commission amends its rules to require all LPTV Service DTS facilities utilize the same emission mask at each DTS site. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in OET Bulletin No. 69, an interference calculation is done for each DTS transmitter site. See OET Bulletin No. 69—Longley-Rice Methodology For Evaluating TV Coverage and Interference (Feb. 6, 2004) a copy of which is available at: https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf. A station is permitted to use any of the emission masks permitted by the Commission's rules, so long as the same emission mask is used at all of their DTS transmitter sites. As of the date of the R&O, there is only one LPTV Service station, WSJT-LD, Atlantic City, NJ (Fac. ID No. 191421) that has been authorized to operate using DTS. The station specified the same emission mask at all sites. No changes to its facilities will be needed to comply with the new rule. There are no other pending applications for LPTV Service stations to implement DTS. Applications pending as of the effective date of this new rule will be required to come into compliance with the new emission mask requirement prior to being acted on.

The Commission adopts a rule that will apply the same requirements for all LPTV Service stations when entering into an interference agreement. This includes entering into a signed written agreement that is submitted with the application, making clear that agreements may include the exchange of money or other consideration between entities, and permitting previously agreed upon interference thresholds be maintained in the event of facility modifications. In order to provide clarity and transparency, the R&O amends the Commission's rules to require LPTV Service stations seeking to use an agreement to resolve interference concerns to enter into a signed written agreement that is submitted with any application that would exceed the 2% interference threshold and makes clear whether money or other consideration was exchanged. Second, the rule provides that stations operating pursuant to interference agreements, or that are unilaterally accepting interference from another station, are permitted to maintain those agreed upon interference thresholds when modifying a facility. The Commission concludes that this revision will not only help maintain the status quo, but preserve existing service to the public based on agreed upon or unilaterally accepted interference levels.

The R&O codifies the use of a one square kilometer grid resolution as the maximum permitted in evaluating the interference caused by LPTV Service facilities. As a maximum limit, the rule inherently permits a finer grid resolution. To make this point clear, the Commission adjusts the text of the rule to clarify that the finer 0.5 km grid resolution remains available so long as it is specified in an exhibit to the application.

The R&O eliminates the 30-day public notice period for displacement applications. The displacement rule currently states that displacement applications “will be placed on public notice for a period of not less than 30 days to permit the filing of petitions to deny.” This comment period was implemented because displacements require channel changes which create a greater concern for interference. At the same time, displacements are considered applications for minor change, and other minor change applications are not subject to the 30-day period for interested parties to file a petition to deny. The Commission concludes that requiring a displaced LPTV/TV translator station to wait a full 30 days to receive action on its displacement application may result in avoidable loss of service to viewers or continued loss of service to viewers by delaying Commission action and thereby a station's ability to construct and commence operating from its displacement facility. Therefore, to minimize service disruptions to the public, expedite processing and construction, reduce burdens on stations and the Commission, and streamline the displacement process, the 30-day public notice period for displacement applications is eliminated. Affected parties that want to oppose grant of a displacement application may still file an informal objection prior to Commission action and seek reconsideration up to 30 days after the grant. In addition, affected parties at any time may report interference concerns that arise after displacement facilities are constructed and operating.

Displacement Caused by Actual Interference. The R&O clarifies what is meant by “causing or receiving interference” as used in § 74.787(a)(4) (Displacement Rule). The Displacement Rule is revised to make clear that this basis for displacement refers to “actual” interference received by a TV broadcast station ( i.e., a full power television station) from an LPTV or TV translator station. While LPTV/TV translator stations are permitted to cause up to 0.5% predicted interference to a full power station, as a primary service full power stations are protected from actual interference within their noise limited service contour (NLSC), even if the predicted interference is below the 0.5% threshold. The Commission declined to adopt its proposal establishing a standard for stations to demonstrate actual interference due to a paucity of the record on this issue and announced that it will continue to examine claims of displacement based on actual interference caused to a full power television station within its NLSC on a case-by-case basis based on the unique facts presented. The Commission also noted that actual interference caused by a TV broadcast station to an LPTV/TV translator has not historically been used for determining displacement of an LPTV/TV translator station. Because LPTV/TV translator stations are secondary and may receive up to 2% predicted interference before being displaced, the presence of actual interference cannot reliably be utilized to demonstrate displacement. As such it did not include such a circumstance in the updated Displacement Rule and concluded that LPTV/TV translator stations that would receive actual interference significant enough to warrant displacement from a TV broadcast station will be able to demonstrate it via the “predicted” interference method.

Displacement Caused by Predicted Interference. The R&O revises the Displacement Rule to clarify the levels of “predicted” interference that is “cause[d] or receive[d]” that qualifies a station for a displacement channel. Under the revised rule, predicted interference “caused” to a TV broadcast station must exceed the 0.5% de minimis interference threshold specified in § 74.793(e) to qualify the station to file a displacement application. With respect to predicted interference “received” from a TV broadcast station, the predicted interference must exceed the 2% interference threshold specified in § 74.793(h) to qualify the station to file a displacement application. This revision is intended to clarify what is meant by the word “predicted” in the context of the Commission's current interference thresholds. It is not intended to expand or restrict displacement eligibility for predicted interference beyond the scope of the current rule. It is also not intended to modify our current interference thresholds ( i.e., 0.5% or 2%).

Displacement Caused by “Other Protected Station or Service”. The R&O revises the displacement rule to make clear what “other protected station or service” means by adding two specific situations that would qualify an LPTV/TV translator station to seek a displacement channel: (1) interference to LMR facilities and (2) interference to/from protected television facilities in Canada and Mexico. The Commission finds that memorializing such circumstances involving “other protected station or service” as qualifying an LPTV/TV translator station for displacement in the Rules will help provide certainty for licensees.

Displacement Caused by Interference to Input Channels. The R&O adds as a basis for displacement interference caused by an LPTV/TV translator station to a TV translator input channel. Although translator inputs are not “protected services,” and the R&O does not change that, the Commission concludes it is in the public interest to provide LPTV/TV translators the ability to seek displacement relief in order to help prevent interference to input channels given their often critical role in enabling TV translators to serve their viewers. Enumerating this basis in our rule will also help reduce burdens on stations by allowing stations to file for displacement without the need for waiver. The basis for demonstrating interference in this circumstance may be “actual” or “predicted” and that interference must be measured in relation to the input channel receive site. While proximity to an input channel's receive site is likely to increase the potential for interference, the underlying intent of the rule is to ensure that LPTV/TV translator stations have flexibility to resolve interference that could impede a TV translator station's ability to receive the programing that it is retransmitting.

Displacement Caused by Full Power Channel Substitutions. The R&O clarifies when an LPTV/TV translator station displaced by a full power station's channel substitution may apply for displacement. The Displacement Rule is amended to specify that such displacement applications cannot be filed until the report and order granting the channel substitution and amending the Table is effective. This revision to the Rules will ensure that the station is in fact qualified for displacement and prevent stations from prematurely reserving spectrum on a contingent basis. In unique circumstances where a full power station is prepared to quickly move to its new channel, an LPTV/TV translator station may seek waiver and apply for special temporary authority to commence operations on its planned displacement channel. The Commission instructs the Bureau to otherwise dismiss, without prejudice, displacement applications that are filed prematurely.

Displacement Exhibit. In order to expedite the processing of displacement applications so that displaced stations can obtain an authorization, quickly begin construction of their displacement facility, and preserve service to the public, the R&O adopts a rule requiring that applicants for displacement include an exhibit briefly describing the specific cause of displacement. The Commission finds that requiring a brief description to be filed with the displacement application is a small task to ask of applicants to prevent processing delays.

LPTV Channel Sharing. LPTV/TV translator stations are permitted to relinquish their licensed channel (sharee station) and enter into a channel sharing agreement (CSA) in order to share the licensed channel of another station (host station). Upon termination of a CSA, whichever station that does not retain rights in the shared channel under the terms of the CSA must either find a new host to share with or, because it no longer has a channel on which to operate, submit its license for cancellation. Previously, the Commission's LPTV/TV translator channel sharing rules did not specifically state whether “orphaned” channel sharing stations could file an application for a new channel upon termination of their CSA. The R&O declines to adopt a commenter's proposal requesting that orphaned LPTV/TV translator stations be permitted to resume independent non-shared operation through use of the displacement process. Instead, the Commission finds that a more appropriate process for LPTV/TV translator channel sharing stations to reacquire their own, non-shared channel is through the existing major modification process. Major modification applications are filed on FCC Form 2100, Schedule C. Prior to filing an application specifying a new, non-shared channel, an application for modification of license to dissolve the existing channel sharing arrangement must be filed. This would be done using FCC Form 2100, Schedule D. The Commission instructs the Bureau to consider waivers on a case-by-case basis for stations whose arrangements have expired or will expire prior to the end of the current major modification freeze. The Bureau should view waiver requests favorably where the applicant can demonstrate that: (1) its channel sharing arrangement has been terminated for reasons beyond its control ( e.g., its arrangement was terminated through the unilateral actions of its channel sharing partner loss of tower site, etc. or the arrangement expired on its own terms), (2) the station has or will be required to go silent prior to lifting of the major modification freeze, (3) grant will preserve service for existing viewers to the greatest extent possible, and (4) the licensee has undertaken reasonable efforts to extend its channel sharing agreement until such time as the freeze is lifted. Applicants should not interpret the Commission's willingness to provide interim relief through waiver as a way to avoid processing priorities once the major change freeze is lifted.

The R&O adopts a rule that makes the part 73 “program test authority” (PTA) rule applicable to LPTV/TV translator stations. Currently, full power and Class A stations, with certain limited exceptions ( e.g., stations permitted to operate on channel 14), may begin operating under PTA after completion of a facility provided that an application for license to cover is filed within ten days of commencing operations. The Commission finds that applying the part 73 PTA rule to LPTV/TV translator stations will provide these stations with the same flexibility as full power and Class A stations to begin operating automatically pursuant to PTA, with certain exceptions, so that they may more expeditiously start providing new and modified service to the public. Television stations on channel 14 will continue to be required to seek approval prior to commencing operations pursuant to program test authority. The Commission or the Bureau, under its delegated authority, may also continue to place conditions as may be necessary on a station's construction permit requiring grant of program test authority prior to commencing operations.

The R&O makes minor editorial changes to the Rules that were a result of inadvertent oversights in the Commission's 2022 Part 74 Order and 2023 Part 73 Order. Specifically, the R&O: (1) removes the duplicate definitions in § 74.701(f) and (k), and (a) and (j) and re-letters the remaining paragraphs as (a) through (g); (2) removes the remaining instances of the word “digital” from §§ 74.720, 11.11(a) and (b), 11.51(e), and 11.61 given that all LPTV/TV translator stations now solely operate in digital mode; and (3) reorganizes and amends § 74.780 based on the service(s) each subsection listed therein is applicable to, and remove the cross-reference to § 73.1692 since that section was previously removed from the rules. The Commission also updated the cross-references in §§ 11.11(b), 11.51(e), 73.3580(a)(3), 74.783(a), 74.783(a)(1), and 74.790(g)(2) to reflect the new lettering to be consistent with revised definitions and §§ 74.732(d), 74.783(a), (a)(1), 74.784(e), and 74.791 (a), (b), (c) to be consistent with the terms and abbreviations in the adopted § 74.701. With regards to the part 73 rules, the R&O: (1) amends § 73.7003 to reflect the proper cross reference to § 73.618 instead of § 73.685, which was relocated to § 73.618; (2) updates the reference in § 73.7003(b)(4) which references a station's analog service “Grade B” contour to instead reference the correct “NLSC” which is used for digital stations; (3) amends the internal cross-reference in § 73.7003(c)(5)(ii) to reference paragraph (c)(5)(i) instead of a nonexistent rule reference; (4) replaces a reference to “DTV” in § 73.619(b)(1) with “TV” consistent with other similar replacements in the 2023 Part 73 Report and Order; (5) updates references in §§ 73.625(c)(4)(i) and 73.6002(a)(2) to reference updated Commission forms names; and (6) corrects typographical errors in § 73.2080(f)(3).

The R&O notes that the Commission received several proposals that the Commission finds propose material changes to the Rules or for the Commission to take other actions outside the scope of this proceeding, including requests to allow LPTV Service stations to operate with additional power, allow more LPTV stations to upgrade to Class A status, grant must carry status to Class A and LPTV stations, add Class A stations to the Table, end certain requirements for ATSC 3.0 operations, reduce EAS requirements for LPTV stations, eliminate the condition placed on LPTV Service licenses related to construction and continuous operations, and rename the Low Power Television Service to the Local Power Television service. The Commission declines to consider or take action on these requests finding that these matters were either outside the scope of this proceeding or are being addressed in the Commission's Delete, Delete, Delete proceeding, and are more appropriately considered in the context of other open proceedings, or were previously raised and rejected as actions beyond the scope the Commission's authority.

After evaluating the record received in response to the NPRM's request for comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in the NPRM, the Commission concludes that to the extent that the revised rules impose any costs on Commission licensees and regulatees, such costs will be minimal and are outweighed by the benefits of the revised rules. Any comments received related to potential costs imposed on Commission licensees and regulatees as a result of revised proposals have been addressed as part of those specific proposals.

Paperwork Reduction Analysis. Amended §§ 73.3700(g)(4), 73.6001, 73.6002, 74.787, 74.791 and 74.793 may contain new or substantively modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). All such new or modified requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies will be invited to comment on any new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), in the NPRM, the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Additionally, this document may contain non-substantive modifications to approved information collections. Any such modifications will be submitted to OMB for review pursuant to OMB's non-substantive modification process.

In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the various new or modified information collection requirements adopted herein and find that they will not impose significant costs on stations because similar application and filing requirements currently exist for many stations and they are likely to be familiar with the forms and processes required for compliance. Further, where possible, the Commission exempts application fees for certain new requirements. To the extent that the requirements impose additional costs on small entities, such costs should be minimal and are outweighed by the benefits of the revised requirements, and would apply equally to small and large entities.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is “non-major” under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) into the Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Advance the Low Power Television, TV Translator and Class A Television Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 89 FR 53537 (June 27, 2024). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.

The R&O adopted changes to the Commission's rules and policies to reflect changes in the service over the last 40 years, help stations in the LPTV Service to be better prepared for future operations, and enhance the LPTV Service overall. Many of the changes also affect Class A stations. Given the maturation of the LPTV Service since its initiation, the R&O adopts the following changes to the regulations of this service:

• Amend the method for calculating the maximum distance that a displaced LPTV/TV translator or LPTV Service channel sharing station may move.

• Revise the minor change rule to establish a uniform maximum distance that LPTV Service stations may move using a minor modification application.

• Require that LPTV Service stations specify a community of license (COL) within their station's contour.

• Establish a formal process by which that LPTV Service stations may change their service designation ( i.e., LPTV to TV translator (and vice versa), as well as Class A to LPTV).

• Require LPTV Service stations to maintain a call sign consistent with their class of service.

• Require use of a “stringent” or “full-service” emission mask for channel 14 LPTV Service stations to prevent interference to LMR facilities.

• Prohibit LPTV/TV translator station operations above TV channel 36.

• Remove the 30 day public notice comment period for displacement applications and clarify when an LPTV/TV translator station displaced by a full power station's channel substitution may apply for displacement.

• Clarify the existing displacement rule and interference thresholds for actual and predicted interference, and amend the definition of displacement to explicitly include displacement by LMR stations; by protected television facilities in Canada and Mexico; and due to interference to TV translator input channels.

• Codify other rule clarifications consistent with precedent, including the use of emission masks at DTS transmitter sites; the maximum grid resolution permitted with interference analyses; and application of the part 73 “program test authority” rule to LPTV/TV translator stations.

• Remove duplicate definitions and obsolete rules, re-letter the definitions remaining in the part 74 rules, and make other editorial, non-substantive corrections to the part 11, 73, and 74 rules.

No comments were filed addressing the impact of the proposed rules on small entities.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the FCC is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as under the Small Business Act. In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. The SBA establishes small business size standards that agencies are required to use when promulgating regulations relating to small businesses; agencies may establish alternative size standards for use in such programs, but must consult and obtain approval from SBA before doing so. The Commission's actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected by the Commission's actions. In general, a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 34.75 million businesses. Next, “small organizations” are not-for-profit enterprises that are independently owned and operated and not dominant their field. While we do not have data regarding the number of non-profits that meet that criteria, over 99 percent of nonprofits have fewer than 500 employees. Finally, “small governmental jurisdictions” are defined as cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000. Based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,724 out of 90,835 local government jurisdictions have a population of less than 50,000.

The rules adopted in the R&O will apply to small entities in the industries identified in the chart below by their six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and corresponding SBA size standard. Based on currently available U.S. Census data regarding the estimated number of small firms in each identified industry, we conclude that the proposed rules will impact a substantial number of small entities. Where available, we also provide additional information regarding the number of potentially affected entities in the identified industries below.

We note that there were 4,689 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations, 1,977 low power FM (LPFM) stations, 8,880 FM translators and boosters, 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,780 LPTV stations and 3,094 TV translator stations. Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2025, Public Notice, DA 25-581 (rel. July 8, 2025).

The RFA directs agencies to describe the economic impact of proposed rules on small entities, as well as projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.

The adopted changes to the Commission's rules and policies are designed to ensure that LPTV service continues to serve the public interest. This includes requiring that LPTV Service stations file an application for modification of license in order to change their COL. In the application, stations must certify that its protected service contour will overlap the COL boundary. Existing FCC Forms 2100, Schedule D (LPTV/TV translator) and F (Class A) will be used for this proposed requirement and only slight changes to the Forms are anticipated. All LPTV Service stations must comply within six months of the effective date of the COL rule.

The R&O also clarifies that test patterns, slides, or still pictures accompanied by unrelated aural transmissions for purposes of determining will not be considered when determining compliance with the requirement that LPTV stations air one free over-the-air video broadcast. We also require that LPTV/TV translator stations that seek to change their designation from LPTV to TV translator and vice versa, seek formal authority to make this change. Existing FCC Form 2100, Schedule D would be used for this proposed requirement and only slight changes to the Form are anticipated. Class A Stations that wish to downgrade to LPTV status must file a similar license modification using existing Form 2100, Schedule F. Only limited changes to the Form are anticipated. In addition, LPTV Service stations with non-compliant call signs will be required to file a request for call sign change to specify a call sign that aligns with its service designation. Class A and LPTV stations will be allowed to seek grandfathering of their existing call sign combination. Stations that seek to change their call signs to comply with the new requirement or those that do not qualify for grandfathering will have one-year to submit a call sign change request, and the associated fees for these changes will be exempted during that time. The Media Bureau's existing Licensing and Management System will be used for this proposed requirement and only minimal changes to the system are anticipated.

The R&O also clarifies that all stations with LPTV designation must comply with Emergency Alert System rules, ensuring these stations have the equipment necessary to provide the public with lifesaving information. Additionally, all new or modified channel 14 LPTV Service stations must specify either stringent or full-service mask filtering, unless the station is decreasing power or making a modification to its facilities that does not change its service contour. The revised rules also require that all transmitters in an LPTV Service station's DTS facilities to utilize the same emission mask to ensure accurate interference calculations. The Commission also amended the rules to require LPTV Service stations seeking to enter into an agreement to resolve interference concerns to enter into a signed written agreement that is submitted with the application and makes clear whether money or other consideration was exchanged. The R&O also eliminates the 30-day public notice period for displacement applications, reducing regulatory burdens for these stations and reducing the loss of service to viewers. Finally, stations filing an application for a displacement minor change will be required to include an exhibit briefly describing the basis for displacement. No changes are need to the minor change application. The R&O also permits LPTV/TV translator channel sharing stations seek their own independent channel by using the major modification process. Existing FCC Form 2100, Schedule F would be used for this purpose and only slight changes to the Form are anticipated.

The NPRM sought comment on the costs and benefits associated with the Commission's proposed changes to LPTV Service rules. In evaluating the record, we find that many proposals adopted in the R&O will not impose significant costs on LPTV Service stations because similar application and filing requirements currently exist for many stations and they are likely to be familiar with the forms and processes required for compliance. Further, where possible, the Commission exempts application fees for certain new requirements, as discussed above. To the extent that the revised rules impose additional costs on small entities, such costs should be minimal and are outweighed by the benefits of the revised rules.

The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”

The Commission took steps and considered several alternatives in this proceeding in order to minimize the economic impact on small entities. For example, in revising the distance relocation limits to account for the difference in miles and kilometers, stations that have lost or may lose their existing transmitter sites may seek a waiver of this requirement as suggested by commenters, so long as the station maintains contour overlap. The Commission allowed stations specifying their COL greater flexibility to use the name of a county or commonly used name of an unincorporated area as the Station's COL, and exempts fees associated with the application to change COL for six months. The Commission also declined to adopt its proposal to limit COL changes to once per year finding that the proposed limit went against the flexibility traditionally afforded to LPTV Service stations to decide where they operate without any corresponding benefit.

The R&O declined to require LPTV Service stations to specify rule-compliant call signs within 90 days of the effective date of the call sign rule and instead allowed stations to “grandfather” existing call signs that are not compliant with the LPTV or Class A call sign rule. The Commission also declined alternative call sign proposals because they would make the call sign system more confusing to the public. Additionally, Commenters suggested that requiring small LPTV stations to operate a minimum number of hours would be costly and burdensome. As such, the R&O declined to adopt the Commission's original proposal to require LPTV stations operate not less than 14 hours per calendar week instead deciding to adopt no minimum operating hour requirement for LPTV stations, thereby allowing the flexibility needed for small LPTV stations without traditional hours to serve their viewers.

The Commission also declined to adopt a proposal to limit service designation changes from LPTV to TV translator to not more than once every 12 months finding that such a limit was not necessary and could unfairly limit stations that need to make such changes for bona fide reasons. The R&O also declined to adopt a proposal by commenters to allow for LPTV/TV translator channel sharing stations to resume independent non-shared operation through use of the displacement process. Instead, the Commission concluded that it would permit LPTV/TV translator channel sharing stations to apply for an independent non-shared operating channel through the Commission's major modification process.

Finally, the R&O declined to adopt a number of proposals that addressed matters outside this proceeding, such as changes to LPTV Station operating power, must carry status, and renaming this service. Some of these proposals were previously rejected while others are being considered in other Commission proceedings. The remaining alternatives adopted by the Commission in the R&O were considered to be the least costly and/or minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules.

The Commission will send a copy of the R&O, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the R&O, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, and 336, this Report and Order is adopted.

It is further ordered that this Report and Order shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , except that the amendments to §§ 73.3700(g)(4), 73.6001, 73.6002, 74.787, 74.791, 74.793, and 74.799, which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, will not become effective until the Office of Management and Budget completes review of any information collections that the Media Bureau determines is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Commission directs the Media Bureau to announce the effective date for §§ 73.3700(g)(4), 73.6001, 73.6002, 74.787, 74.791, 74.793, and 74.799, by notice in the Federal Register and by subsequent Public Notice.

It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

It is further ordered that, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.

It is further ordered that should no petitions for reconsideration or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, MB Docket No. 24-148 shall be terminated and its docket closed.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 11, 73 and 74 as follows:

The Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada concerning Pacific salmon was signed at Ottawa on January 28, 1985, and subsequently was given effect in the United States by the Pacific Salmon Treaty Act (Act) at 16 U.S.C. 3631-3644. Article VI and Chapter 4 of Annex IV of the Treaty address fisheries for Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon. Article VI describes the framework for annual management of these fisheries, and Chapter 4 of Annex IV sets forth the agreement of the parties regarding the details of annual management.

Under authority of the Act and consistent with the provisions of the Treaty, Federal regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart F, describe a framework for the implementation of certain regulations of the Commission and inseason orders of the Commission's Panel for U.S. sockeye and pink salmon fisheries in the Panel Area.

The regulations close the U.S. portion of the Panel Area to U.S. sockeye and pink salmon tribal and non-tribal commercial fishing unless opened by Panel regulations that are given effect by inseason orders issued by NMFS (50 CFR 300.94(a)(1)). During the fishing season, NMFS may issue inseason orders that establish fishing times and areas consistent with the annual Commission fishing regime and inseason orders of the Panel. Such orders must be consistent with domestic legal obligations and are issued by the Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS. Official notification of these inseason actions is provided by two telephone hotline numbers described at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 90 FR 20810 (May 16, 2025). The inseason orders are published in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after they are issued. Due to the frequency with which inseason orders are generally issued, publication of orders during the fishing season is impracticable.

NMFS issued the following inseason order for U.S. fisheries within Panel Area waters during the 2025 fishing season, consistent with the orders adopted by the Panel. Each inseason action was effective upon announcement on telephone hotline numbers as specified at 50 CFR 300.97(b)(1) and in 90 FR 20810 (May 16, 2025); the dates and times of each action are listed herein. The times listed are in Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) and the areas designated are Puget Sound Management and Catch Reporting Areas as defined in the Washington State Administrative Code at Chapter 220-301-030.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Thursday, August 7, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 9, 2025.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 9, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 13, 2025.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing 5 a.m., Sunday, August 10, 2025 through 11:59 p.m., Monday, August 11, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for purse seine fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for drift gillnet fishing 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2025.

Area 7: Open for reef net fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Monday, August 11, 2025 and 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Tuesday, August 12, 2025.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 13, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 16, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for purse seine fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Friday, August 15, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for drift gillnet fishing 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Friday, August 15, 2025.

Area 7: Open for reef net fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Friday, August 15, 2025.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Extend for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 16, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 20, 2025.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A: Open for net fishing 5 a.m., Sunday, August 17, 2025 through 11:59 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for purse seine fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

Areas 7 and 7A: Open for drift gillnet fishing 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

Area 7: Open for reef net fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Tuesday, August 19, 2025.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, August 27, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, August 30, 2025. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for net fishing 5 a.m., Wednesday, August 27, 2025 through 5 a.m., Thursday, August 28, 2025. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

Areas 7 and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for purse seine fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Thursday, August 28, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Areas 7 and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for drift gillnet fishing 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Thursday, August 28, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Area 7: Open for reef net fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Thursday, August 28, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Open for drift gillnet fishing 12 p.m. (noon), Wednesday, September 3, 2025 through 12 p.m. (noon), Saturday, September 6, 2025. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for net fishing 5 a.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2025 through 9 p.m., Friday, September 5, 2025. Sockeye may be retained for ceremonial and subsistence purposes only.

Areas 7 and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for purse seine fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2025 and 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Thursday, September 4, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Areas 7 and 7A in the area southerly and easterly of a straight line drawn from the Iwersen Dock on Point Roberts in the State of Washington to the Georgina Point Light at the entrance to Active Pass in the province of British Columbia: Open for drift gillnet fishing 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2025 and 8 a.m. through 11:59 p.m., Thursday, September 4, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Area 7: Open for reef net fishing 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Wednesday, September 3, 2025 and 5 a.m. through 9 p.m., Thursday, September 4, 2025. Sockeye must be released.

Areas 4B, 5, and 6C: Relinquish regulatory control effective 11:59 p.m., Sunday, September 7, 2025.

Areas 6, 7, and 7A, excluding the Apex: Relinquish regulatory control effective 11:59 p.m., Thursday, September 11, 2025. The Apex is those waters north and west of the Area 7A “East Point Line,” defined as a line projected from the low water range marker in Boundary Bay on the International Boundary through the east tip of Point Roberts in the state of Washington to the East Point Light on Saturna Island in the Province of British Columbia.

The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for the inseason orders to be issued without affording the public prior notice and opportunity for comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such prior notice and opportunity for comments is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because of insufficient time between the time the stock abundance information is available to determine how much fishing can be allowed and the time the fishery must open or close in order to harvest the appropriate amount of fish while they are available. There is a heightened need to respond quickly to inseason information about the salmon fishery because the fish migrate quickly through the U.S. Panel Area and the composition of species or stocks changes rapidly. The amount of time to act effectively on the available stock information is short. By the time public notice and comment would be completed, the mix of species and stocks in the fishery would have changed such that in-season action would be ineffective. Therefore, NMFS determined that waiving notice and comment served the public interest.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date, required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), of the inseason orders. A delay in the effective date of the inseason orders would not allow fishers appropriately controlled access to the available fish at that time they are available.

This action is authorized by 50 CFR 300.97, and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.